(Sec.

5 – recommending relative to a private enterprise)

G.R. No. 167278 February 27, 2008

ATTY. GIL A. VALERA, CPA-LCB, Deputy Commissioner, Revenue Collection Monitoring Group, Bureau
of Customs
vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FACTS: Gil A. Valera was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as Deputy
Commissioner of Customs in charge of the Revenue Collection Monitoring Group. He filed in the RTC of
Manila, a collection case with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment for the collection
of P37,195,859.00 in unpaid duties and taxes against Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation (SAMC),
which utilized fraudulent tax credit certificates in the payment of its duties. The raw materials, finished
products and plant equipment of SAMC were subsequently attached. Petitioner and SAMC entered into a
compromise agreement wherein the latter offered to pay on a staggered basis through thirty (30) monthly
equal installments the P37,195,859.00 duties and taxes sought to be collected in the civil case.
Director of the CIDG – PNP, Eduardo Matillano, filed a letter-complaint against petitioner with the
Ombudsman which states that Atty. Gil A. Valera had compromised the case against the Steel Asia
Manufacturing Corporation without proper authority from the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs in
violation of The Custom Code of the Philippines and without the approval of the President, in violation of
Executive Order No. 156 and Executive Order No. 38. Such illegal acts of Atty. Gil A. Valera deprived the
government of its right to collect the legal interest, surcharges and damages and gave the Steel Asia
unwarranted benefits in the total uncollected amount of (P14,762,467.70), which is violative of Sections
3(e) and (g) respectively of RA 3019.
Further investigation disclosed that Atty. Gil A. Valera while being a Bureau of Customs official
causing the employment of his brother-in-law, Ariel Manongdo, with the Cactus Cargoes Systems, Inc.
whose principal business involves transactions with the Bureau of Customs in violation of Section 3(d) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and "The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (R.A. No. 6713). Section
7, subpar. (b)(3) thereof, is very specific in criminalizing the act of recommending any person to any
position in a private enterprise which has a regular or pending official transaction with their office. The
Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of this misconduct. The CA on petition for Certiorari affirmed the
findings of the Ombudsman.
Petitioner asserted that the respondents erred in finding him liable for the employment of his
brother-in-law Ariel N. Manongdo with CCSI, claiming that Section 3 (g) of RA 6713 states that:
(g) "Family of public officials or employees" means their spouses and unmarried children under
eighteen (18) years of age.

ISSUE: WON Petitioner is guilty of violation of RA 6713 for recommending his brother in law in CCSI.

HEL: YES.
Under R.A. No. 6713, the term "family" referring to spouse and unmarried children under 18 y/o
was used only once under Section 4, par. (h), which implores public officials and employees and their
families to observe "simple living. This term family has not been used in other section of said law. What
petitioner fails to mention is that R.A. No. 6713 itself prohibits the act of public officials and employees
during their incumbency to recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction with their office.
Petitioner also tried to apply in RA 3019 the term family of RA 6713. Certainly, the definition of the
word "family" under said law would unduly limit and render meaningless Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 3019 if
applied to the latter. In fact, family relation is defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 301923 which,
according to the said section, "shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third
civil degree." Thus, we need not look beyond the provisions of R.A. No. 3019 to hold that a brother-in-law
falls within the definition of family under Section 3(d) thereof.
In this case, petitioner did not deny that Ariel Manongdo is his brother-in-law or that CCSI has
regular transactions with his office. Thus, petition dismissed.