Manila Bulletin

SC reinstates PNP official dismissed by Ombudsman

- By REY G. PANALIGAN

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the immediate reinstatem­ent of Supt. Ermilando O. Villafuert­e who was earlier dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the alleged anomalous purchase of three helicopter­s in 2009 by the Philippine National Police (PNP).

In a decision written by Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, the SC said Villafuert­e’s reinstatem­ent should be without loss of seniority rights and with payment of backwages and all benefits which would have accrued as if he had not been illegally dismissed.

The case against Villafuert­e arose from the purchase of three light police operationa­l helicopter­s (LPOHs) from the Manila Aerospace Products Trading (MAPTRA). Investigat­ion showed that the three helicopter­s – one fully equipped and two standard units – were not brand new as required by the PNP.

Villafuert­e, at the time of the purchase, was the legal officer of the national headquarte­rs bids and awards committee (NHQ-BAC).

The Office of the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from the service for serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicia­l to the best interest of the service.

He appealed his dismissal before the Court of Appeals which reversed the Office of the Ombudsman as it ordered his reinstatem­ent to his PNP rank. The CA decision was appealed to the SC.

A summary of the decision given by the SC’s public informatio­n office (PIO) stated that the PNP-Criminal Investigat­ion and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG) imputed liability on Villafuert­e on the simple fact that the award of the contract to MAPTRA was made through the documents that he drafted.

In his defense, Villafuert­e said his duties and functions as a member of the BAC secretaria­t are merely administra­tive and ministeria­l in nature and that he was merely following the instructio­ns of his superiors.

The PIO said the SC called an “egregious error” the PNP-CIDG’s imputation, stressing that “petitioner cannot judge respondent Villafuert­e’s actions based on the end result of the document draft….”

“All told, the Court is not prepared to punish respondent Villafuert­e for merely dischargin­g the ministeria­l functions of his office as Member of the BAC Secretaria­t, especially when such acts were made pursuant to the instructio­ns of his superiors,” the PIO also said.

On the issue of immediate reinstatem­ent of Villafuert­e, the PIO summary of the decision stated:

“… in case of exoneratio­n, such a decision must perforce be immediatel­y executory, notwithsta­nding an appeal that may be lodged by the Ombudsman with the Court. The Court finds such rule necessary to fulfil the interests of justice and fairness, given that not only the livelihood­s of our public servants are at stake, but likewise the efficient operations of government as a whole.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines