CA upholds decision sacking Vitangcol for grave misconduct, extortion

The Court of Appeals (CA) stood pat on its decision and upheld the dismissal from service of former Metro Rail Transit Authority (MRTA) general manager Al Vitangcol III who was also barred perpetually from holding public office.

Vitangcol’s dismissal was a result of an administrative case filed against him in his attempt to extort $30 million from a Czech firm INEKON that supplied the light rail vehicles (LRVs).

Last year’s CA decision stated: “Vitangcol’s liability for grave misconduct is also beyond doubt. His failed attempts to extort money from INEKON’s representative in exchange for the contract under Lot 1 and to forge a joint venture agreement with INEKON and a group of people that he himself proposed involve the element of corruption and constitute willful intent to violate the law.”

Vitangcol filed a motion to reconsider the CA decision.

But the CA said Vitangcol failed to raise new arguments to warrant the reversal of the decision dated July 3, 2017.

“We do not find any bona fide effort on the part of Vitangcol to present additional matters or reiterate his arguments in a different light. Thus, there is no need to reconsider or revisit what was already presented before this Court when we rendered the July 3, 2017 decision,” the CA said in a resolution that dismissed the motion for reconsideration.

In its investigation, the Office of the Ombudsman found that Vitangcol imposed as pre-condition an advance of $30 million, later reduced to $25 million, and entering into a joint venture with a group for the award of contracts for the supply of additional LRVs and the maintenance of the MRT3 line in connection with the R3.7 billion MRT3 expansion project in 2012.

Vitangcol was found guilty of two counts each of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and unlawful solicitation. The Ombudsman imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding office.

But since Vitangcol was already dismissed from his post when the Ombudsman handed its decision, the penalty of dismissal was converted to a fine equivalent to his one year salary.