You are on page 1of 29

Republic of the Philippines





- versus -

C.A. Case No ______

Maritime Industry Authority
Regional Office No. V, Legaspi City




Petitioner, through counsels, unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully
state :


This is an appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court from the
decision of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon in Office’s
Joint Resolution dated 10 August 2006 in OMB-L-C-06-0341-C for
Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and OMB-L-A-060251-C for Misconduct entitled “ Ricarlito J. Alivio vs. Lucita T.
Madarang. A certified copy of the Decision in question is hereto attached
as Annex A and is hereinafter referred to as “Ombudsman Decision” for

1 Considering that the case at bar was a consolidation of an administrative and a criminal complaint, petitioner
had the option to either file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals or directly file a
certiorari petition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court .( AMANDO P. CONTES v. OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN (VISAYAS), ET AL., GR. NO. 187896-97, June 10, 2013)

Acting in his own capacity and without employing the services of a lawyer.. petitioner filed Motion for Reconsideration of the Ombudsman Decision on 20 April 2015. . Alivio is a retired Coast Guard Station Commander and is presently residing at 266 Barangay Sampaloc. San Rafael. V. Philippines. The 15-day reglementary period ends on 13 June 2015. He is represented by herein counsel.II. III. Thus. Notice of the said Joint Order was received by the complainant on 28 May 2015. Bulacan. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES Notice of the said Ombudsman Decision was received by herein petitioner on 20 March 2015. this petition for review is filed within the reglementary period. PARTIES Pettioner Ricardo J. on 30 April 2015. Respondent. Legazpi City where she may be served with summons and other processes by this Honorable Court. However. IV. on the other hand. is Lucita Madarang . Director of the Maritime Industry Authority Regional Office No. the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman in its Joint Order denied the motion for reconsideration.

This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. Corrupt practices of public officers. 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act which provides. evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. to wit : “Section 3. including the Government. The focal point of this Petition is to call the urgent attention and action of this Honorable Court to what petitioner believe is a grave failure of the decision and misapprehension of facts which is prejudicial to the government of the Philippines and runs afoul to the constitutional and statutory enactments in curbing graft and corrupt practices act. the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (e) Causing any undue injury to any party. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law.” The petitioner who is an advocate of a clean and honest government and a dedicated public service is becoming frail enough to seek solution . the Ombudsman decision was done in haste and no real consideration on the evidences attached to the complaint submitted by the petitioner. advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality.CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS INVOLVED This is an appeal of the Joint Resolution of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon dated 10 August 2006 in OMB-L-C-06-0341-C for Violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits. 3019 and OMB-L-A-060251-C for Misconduct dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner against the respondent. Simply put. This is largely a mixed question of facts and of law particularly Sec.

al. Commander Ireneo Endozo Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and Respondent. the petitioner is still clinching an iota of hope that this Honorable Court upon perusal of this case based on the evidences attached be convinced that the respondent is and beyond reasonable doubt guilty of the violating the aforecited section of R. 3019 and is administratively liable for misconduct in office. The petitioner has been waiting for the respondents’ and/or Ombudsman action since his filing of the case against respondent in 06 January 2006. that petitioner sent a letter to the Honorable Ombudsman (Annex B) inquiring as to the status of the complaint against Dr. The petitioner only came to know and received the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman decision on the late afternoon of 20 March August 2015 while in the company of a friend subscribing his complaint affidavit at the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon where the copy of such was provided after formal request.of this epidemic corruption in the country upon learning of the railroaded Ombudsman Decision.A. et. Director Lucita T. DISCUSSION A. . Santiago Jr. IV. Nestor F. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman did not make a real and honest investigation and consideration of the case rendering its decision void.. Madarang. However. It was on 26 October 2006.

Malicious Mischief. respondent was required to submit her counter Affidavit on 6 April 2006 but categorically. As stated in the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision. Violation of RA -7279. ART. Since petitioner is the one who prepared the instant motion. Violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA-3019). the Honorable Ombudsman finally answered it on 9 February 2010. Violation of PD 1866 and filed before the Honorable Ombudsman on 8 April 2015. RPC. Grave Threat. 128. As specified in the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision.After four (4) years of petitioners letter in inquiry in Annex B. the Honorable Ombudsman had already decided the case against Director Madarang even two (2) months before petitioner’s letter in Annex B. respondent’s counter affidavit . Theft. however petitioner categorically denied having received copy of the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision. Violation of RA 6713. for Grave Misconduct. RPC. Arturo Torbiso and Mike Biadnes and subsequent filing of the case against Barangay Captain Arnel Cruz et. Violation of Domicile ART. The petitioner was pre-occupied in the police appearances. 282. (Annex D). petitioner was furnished with a copy of such using the address Coast Guard Station Legaspi. due to the untoward incident within his abode on the following day (21 March 2015) of his receipt of the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision. (Annex C) specifying that the case against Director Madarang docketed as OMBL-C-06-0341-C (criminal aspect) and OMB–L-A-06-0251-C (administrative aspect) has been submitted for final review and approval but it failed to specify that four (4) years ago. If indeed. Legaspi City. Violation of RA 9994. Grave Abuse of Authority. the same was submitted only on 20 April ART. 308. 327. RPC. (Annex E and F)(Please see receipt of the Ombudsman of aforesaid complaint). RPC. 10 August 2006. ART. Pier Site. documentation and the preparation of his Complaint Affidavit and that of the Joint Complaint Affidavit of Mr. petitioner has not received the counter affidavit neither a position paper from the respondent.

The petitioner was no longer assigned with Coast Guard Station Legazpi when the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision was pronounced and was supposedly delivered to Coast Guard Station Legazpi after Capt. the message center of the Philippine Coast Guard. Headquarters Philippine Coast Guard. before the Office of the Honorable Ombudsman. Tuason unceremoniously relieved petitioner of his post as Station Commander. Tuason and others riotous dissemination of libelous radio messages against petitioner to all PCG units nationwide and in fact. Tuason charged petitioner with fabricated cases on 02 February 2006 relative to petitioner’s disposition on M/V Rodolfo Jr. Coast Station Legaspi on 20 January 2006 three (3) days after the latter’s assumption as Commander of Coast Guard District Bicol and fourteen (14) days after the petitioner’s filing of his complaint against Director Lucita T.and the Ombudsman Decision were forwarded to the aforesaid address. Port Area. rebutted and rejected by all of the . for his(petitioner) cognizance. perusal and appropriate action. Subsequent to Complainants’ unceremonious relief.It is crystal clear that Capt. unfairly indicted petitioner on the fabricated charges that lead to his illegal retirement from the PCG service. subverted. Capt. denounced. MARINA V. and on 28 March 2005 on the alleged missing narra that happened long before his term notwithstanding his devilish action of putting petitioner on Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) when the latter was already released to report to his new unit assignment followed by Capt. Manila. Coast Station Legaspi denied receipt thereof and has not forwarded both copies to petitioner through the Coast Guard Adjutant. Tuason was clearly exacting vengeance against petitioner for his filing of anti-graft and corrupt practices act cases before the Ombudsman against Director Lucita Tuason Madarang. Madarang. All of respondents’ assertions and that of the espoused or advocated contentions in the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision in can all be crashed.

petitioner’s presentation and attachments in his complaint against respondent most specifically on Exhibits 10. 16 and 18 of the complaint (Annex H) serves as petitioner’s administrative remedy prior to his filing of anti-graft case against respondent for her reconsideration of her anomalous dismissal on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. Respondent is lying of having real pieces of evidence. usurp. I am now therefore constrained to submit this matter for adjudication to the office of the Ombudsman. dispose on PCG functions or to dismiss PCG Memorandum Circular violations as the PCG is not under MARINA but respondent never gave a damn. 14. 13. What real pieces of evidence that respondent is referring to? MARINA is not the apprehending unit of Candano Shipping Lines vessels but the PCG (CGS Legaspi in case of LCT Don Wilfredo and M/V Maria Lourdes and CGS Zamboanga in case . 16 and 18 of the complaint(Annex G) if only it was darely cared and scrutinized will eventually point out on respondents’ guilt on the petitioner’s charges against her. Exhibits can be gleaned in Exhibit18 of the complaint (Annex I) to wit: “Since the matter cannot be resolved as you continue to defend your biases against CGS Legazpi in favor of Candano Shipping Lines. and LCT Don Wifredo in paragraph 12 of the complaint as the respondent has no legal rights to encroach.”. Respondent is categorically lying that her issuances of Cease and Desist Orders as well as Dismissal Order were based on the real pieces of evidence and not conjectures and surmises. 13. stand firm and steadfast in justifying her decision through her superfluous justification and alibi and even insulted petitioner and demeaning the PCG and even despite of petitioners forewarning in the last paragraph of his 12 December 2005 letter. 14. B. instead.

4. Respondent is categorically lying she accorded the respondent shipping companies (Candano Shipping Lines) the right to due process of On the contrary what the respondent has superbly accorded and extended to Candano Shipping Lines were special insurmountable and superfluous favors by deliberately and wantonly dismissing all of its maritime violations (MARINA MC and PCG MC violations) as specified in petitioner’s adjudication in Exhibits 1. Master and Candano Shipping Lines representatives admitted the commissions of maritime violations during CGS Legaspi’s hearing and Candano Shipping Lines paid / were receipted of their fines on PCG violations. Likewise.Respondent is lying that she accorded Due Process the respondent shipping companies.of M/V Rodolfo Jr). the evidence is with Coast Guard Station Legazpi not with respondent. PCG MC or MARINA MC violations alike. 2. Coast Guard Station Legazpi’s action are proper and factual as all of our apprehensions were supported by documentary evidence such as Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR). boarding procedures and issued the Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR) and the adjudication of their maritime violation not MARINA nor the respondent. It is the respondent actions to the contrary that are conjectures and surmises as she doesn’t have the evidence. The PCG was the one conducting inspection. Boarding Certificate and the Master and Chief Engineer signed in the Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR) and Boarding Certificate their concurrence of their committed maritime violations. 6 and 8 of the complaint (Annex J) as endorsed by COMMO LALISAN in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the . 3. C. Hence.

000.000) for M/V Maria Lourdes which was not collected and put to naught aside from the nonimplementation of the sanctions and cancellation of the CPC/PA/SP of Candano Shipping Lines and the cancellation of the SIRB and the revocation of STCW Endorsement Certificate of CAPT Nathaniel Latorena.. the one issuing the Inspection and Apprehension Report (IAR).complaint (Annex K) at the expense of the PCG.One Hundred Twenty Five (P125.000.000.00) for M/V Rodolfo Jr. Two Hundred Sixty Thousand (P260. master of M/V Rodolfo Jr. conducting the adjudication and the Hearing Officer of the case especially so on M/V Maria Lourdes that aside from MARINA MC and PCG MC violations is also violating Republic Act No. the Hearing Officer and at the expense of the government by respondents deliberate and wanton repudiation of income due to the government in the total amount of Five Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P540. the apprehending unit and petitioner.3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as it deprives the government of the money ought to be brought to its coffers. and One Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Pesos (P155. respondent should have invited the PCG (Coast Guard Station Legazpi) when they had allegedly conducted hearing on Candano Shipping Lines Vessels prior to its dismissal of their cases as right and proper being the apprehending unit. Respondent’s deliberate inaction hereto only legibly portrayed respondent’s biases in favor to maritime violators. which is in gross violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act . .00) on MARINA Memorandum Circular violations alone. 8172 or An Act Promoting Salt Iodization Nationwide and for Related Purposes (ASIN LAW) which they knew pretty well of the apprehension thereof but respondent deliberately did not.00) for LCT Don Wilfredo. If due process was observed hereof. Candano Shipping Lines and its crew which constitutes graft and corrupt practice.

2. and LCT Don Wilfredo in Exhibits 12 of the complaint (Annex L) and likewise deliberately disregarded and discarded Commo Lalisan’s endorsement in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint without the benefit of formal hearing and/or inviting the apprehending elements and Hearing Officer for their respective comments or testimonies which is but proper and a mandated protocol.D. . and Capt Carlos Caparoso. the Commander of Coast Guard District Bicol of the PCG. 2. Respondent however deliberately and wantonly proceeded on the dismissal of the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. 3. master of LCT Don Wilfredo as it is within the ambit of the functions of respondent’s office. 6 and 8 of the complaint to respondent for the collection of the payment on MARINA violations and imposition of sanctions. What Candano Shipping Lines only formally requested from Commo Lalisan is their preference to settle or pay their fines with MARINA on MARINA MC Violation as stipulated in the petitioner’s letter to respondent in Exhibit 19 of the complaint. Worthy to note that both Candano Shipping Lines and respondent did not object or interpose their objection nor they are contesting the petitioners Adjudication in Exhibits 1. finding justifiable merit on petitioner’s adjudication proceedings on Candano Shipping Lines vessels concurs and formally endorses. 6 and 8 of the complaint as well as Commo Lalisan’s endorsement in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint. 3. master M/V Rodolfo Jr. Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint and his adjudication in Exhibits 1. 4. MARINA. 4.Respondent wantonly disregarded Commo Antonio Lalisan’s Endorsement on the cases of Candano Shipping Lines Vessels Commo Antonio C Lalisan. the cancellation of CPC / PA / SP on Candano Shipping Lines and cancellation of SIRB / STCW Endorsement Certificate of CAPT Nathaniel Latorena.

grossly unethical. Petitioner on his letter to respondent also inquired as to what action that Respondent had undertaken on our endorsement on LCT Don Wilfredo and likewise soliciting an advice as to where to elevate our endorsement in Exhibits 1. the Hearing Officer or Commo Lalisan can support or prove the truthfulness or validity of the proceedings and elaborate thier actions. 3.unprofessional . the Hearing Officer or Commo Lalisan if respondent does not honor the adjudication of the Hearing Officer and the endorsement of Commo Lalisan and/or if the respondent has questions or doubted the adjudication proceedings so that the petitioner. 3. E.payment of candano shipping lines fines of vessels is illegal.It is the duty of the respondent to notify or summon the petitioner. 2. findings and recommendation or might as well stand as complainant of the case. 6 and 8 of the complaint when it was specifically inquired and requested by the petitioner in his 10 August 2005 letter to respondent ( Exhibit 10 of the complaint) that if she do not act or honor the endorsement of Commo Lalisan complaint so that we can refer the matter to the right agency than waiting for nothing but instead being discriminated. and 4 of the complaint as subject vessel is still operating despite the 19 May 2005 endorsement of Commo Lalisan for the cancellation of CPC / PA / SP and cancellation of SIRB / STCW Endorsement Certificate of Capt Carlos Caparoso. 4. Respondent had no mention in her dismissal and the Cease and Desist Order on Candano Shipping Lines vessels as to what action she had undertaken on the endorsement of Commo Lalisan in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint relative to the petitioner’s adjudication in Exhibits 1. 2.Respondent’s grant of clemency for non . master LCT Don Wilfredo.

master LCT Don Wilfredo and Capt Nathaniel Latorena.and anomalous. grossly unethical. are you not pleased for us toiling for your agency to collect additional revenue for you and the government?” Coast Guard Station Legazpi was really aggrieved. The petitioner’s overwhelming disappointment on respondents’ dismissal of the case of Candano Shipping Lines vessels and her wanton disregard of Commo Lalisan’s endorsement was expressly stipulated in paragraph 7 in his 21 November 2005 letter to respondent. MARINA V is so indifferent to thier adjudication proceedings when other MARINA .” …….00. Why. for PCG MC violations (HPCG MC 04-98 paragraph XI sub paragraph b3) as it has undergone proper adjudication proceedings and it is beyond the ambit of respondent’s office to dismiss such. Exhibit 16 of the complaint (Annex M) to wit: “if you sacrifice for the non-payment of MARINA violations and the implementation of the relative sanctions on Candano Shipping lines. unprofessional and anomalous for respondent deliberately disregard the endorsement and/or act on the recommendation of Commo Lalisan for the sanctions and recommendation for the suspension of cancellation of SIRB / STCW Endorsement Certificate of Capt Carlos Caparoso. please do not include that of the PCG as it may dampened and dumped the sanctity of our noble purpose and intentions notwithstanding our inconvenience and sacrifices..000. “The total collectible penalty on Candano Shipping Lines for MARINA violations is P540. master M/V Rodolfo Jr. Respondent’s act of granting clemency on Candano Shipping Lines and vessels is clearly illegal. adversely affected and felt insulted as to why respondent.

Santiago Nestor F. Director. Enrile.Regional Director / offices where they have been endorsing similar adjudications were receptive and even grateful to thier courageous actions against maritime violators so much of collecting sumptuous penalties out of their religious drive in maritime law enforcement and diligent implementation of MARINA Memorandum Circulars that add insurmountable income to their treasury. and et. it dawned to them the compelling reason why Candano Shipping Lines was too eager to formally request before Commo Lalisan to choose to pay their MARINA MC violations with respondent when they can very well pay their penalty with the PCG for MARINA if they really have the intention to do so and intention to quash their case is not of respondent’s concern. The petitioner had articulated to the respondent in the ninth paragraph in his 21 November 2005 Exhibit 16 of the complaint to wit: “Why is MARINA therefore sympathetic to maritime violators? If MARINA or MARINA . in violation to R. Further.A 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) was filed before the Ombudsman on 06 January 2005. please do not include us. With respondent foregoing actions. petitioner find it strange why respondent is so sympathetic to maritime violators despite knowing of M/V Maria Lourdes apprehension being utilized in smuggling (case was referred to Atty. Vehement protest on respondent’s .V subscribe or sympathetic to Candano Shipping Lines despite the forward presentation. F. NBI Legazpi on 12 April 2005 for further investigation and dispositive action while the case against Dr. the PCG as we still have our delicadeza and dignity left to contend with pride.” .

detention. the respondent’s. LMRO (SC0) 05-036 and LCT Don Wilfredo in LMRO (SCO) 05-037. petitioner wrote respondent.anomalous dismissal on the cases of M/V Rodolfo Jr. anomalous and illegal as it encompasses PCG violations and/or what is being principally discussed in the dismissal and likewise the material and the equipment that were being cited for the eventual dismissal in the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. are not requisites of MARINA MC violations but PCG MC violations which is beyond respondent jurisdiction and/or she do not have legal right to encroach on PCG functions as the PCG is not under MARINA where even the Administrator of MARINA do not have the authority to usurp. inappropriate. Respondent was practically usurping the PCG functions by obviously dismissing the PCG violations as clearly specified in the dismissal order. Exhibit 13 of the complaint. and LCT Don Wilfredo Respondent is categorically lying that those deficiencies of Candano Shipping Lines vessels were already rectified upon their inspection hence. in the Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR). (Annex N) manifesting his strong protest or complaint for the 29 September 2005 dismissal of the case of M/V Rodolfo in Cases Nos. only primary concern therein is the non-possession of Document of Compliance (DOC) / Safety Management Certificate and no port and starboard anchor. her dismissal of their cases thereof but to the contrary. (Exhibit 12 of the complaint) as it is defective. as Director. . irregular. of MARINA V. highly questionable. dispose PCG functions which are beyond the jurisdiction of his office so much so of ignoring or discounting the PCG’s imposition of penalty due to M/V Rodolfo Jr. Both are major MARINA violations that warrant M/V Rodolfo Jr. On 22 October 2005. On the listed violations of M/V Rodolfo Jr.

” G. a MARINA MC violation but authoritatively discussed the non-possession of Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate (OPPC). Oily Water Separator (OWS) and No Fire Control Plan which are not MARINA MC violations but PCG MC violations. we felt insulted by your actions especially so that our diligent efforts and service were only put to naught and further putting us. rectification of its noted deficiencies i. Respondent was categorically lying before the Honorable Ombudsman of claiming in her 29 September 2005 dismissal that MARINA Auditor had conducted inspection on M/V Rodolfo Jr. Oily-Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate of Compliance (OPPC) when in fact to the contrary respondents’ malicious claim herein is in fact in gross contradiction of the issued certificates and to her 20 January 2006 certification.e. the apprehending element in the laughing stock. . Petitioner candidly impressed upon respondent in his 22 October 2005. on 16 September 2005 on the compliance. were false and devoid of truth. Respondent’s assertions on the rectification and compliance of defeciencies of MV Rodolfo Jr. Exhibit 13 of the complaint that Coast Station Legazpi to wit: “Candidly.Respondent deliberately failed to discuss in her dismissal the no port and starboard anchor.

M/V Rodolfo Jr. Likewise 9MEPU. The 18 January 2006 per its Vessel Inspection Report. (Annex S) and CG Detachment Tabaco radio message. (and twenty (20) days after the dismissal (28 September 2005) of Director Madarang . only possesses both the OWS and OPPC. (Annex O). was only issued and granted by Commo Antonio C Lalisan PCG on 18 October 2005. (Annex Q) followed by the 18 January 2006 Letter Order of LCDR Nelson Torre to 9MEPU. Relative hereto. on 19 January 2006 per its After Inspection Report to SC. CGS Legazpi on the MARPOL Equipment of M/V Rodolfo Jr.5 Type Oily-Water Separator (OWS) and OPPC of M/V Rodolfo Jr. (Annex T). had in fact specifies the non-compliance of M/V Rodolfo Jr.5 Type Oily-Water Separator (OWS) was only issued and signed by VADM GOSINGAN on 06 October 2005. the inspection of the CYSC-0.The Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate of Compliance (OPPC) of M/V Rodolfo Jr. CGS Legazpi for the conduct of the inspection of the CYSC-0. was only dispatched on 17 January 2006. and was only respectively conducted by CGS Legazpi on 18 January 2006 per its Vessel Inspection Report. Categorically therefore.5 Type Oily-Water Separator (OWS) of M/V Rodolfo Jr. eight (8) months after the apprehension and issuance of the IAR (26 February 2005) for non-possession thereof. CGD Bicol only conducted the inspection of the OPPC and OWS of M/V Rodolfo Jr. seven (7) months (12 April 2005) after petitioner’s adjudication of the IAR. While the Accreditation of the CYSC-0. Likewise inspection by Coast Guard Detachment Tabaco in its 18 January 2006 radio message also specifies non-rectification of its deficiencies. and other related documents (Annex U). Inspection Report. CGD Bicol for the conduct of the inspection (Annex R). (Annex P) and the radio message directing Station Commander. of its deficiencies where it was recommended therein for re-inspection and compliance prior departure.

Respondents’ inconsistent statements / pronouncement in her Dismissal Order further proved the anomalous dismissal thereof. T and U and in her to her 20 January 2006 certification. Q. (Annex V) certifying that Candano Shipping Lines has been audited per its compliance of MARINA Memorandum Circular 159 and had been favorably endorsed to Maritime Safety Office – MARINA for the issuance of Interim Document for Compliance (Interim DOC) per Memorandum dated 13 January 2006. respondent furnished Coast Guard Station Legazpi a certification. How could respondent says the violation was rectified when her subsequent statement only shows the payment for the company’s shipboard manuals and it is yet to be audited by the field auditor and there was no possession yet by the company and M/V Rodolfo Jr. on 29 September 2005? H. Respondent’s certification further points on his anomalous dismissal on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. and LCT Don Wilfredo On 20 January 2006. R. S. This is notwithstanding on other documentary justifications in Annexes O. of the DOC / SMC but Director MADARANG dismissed the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr.on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. of the . Respondent’s certification clearly manifested and specified of its endorsement on the recent audit on M/V Rodolfo Jr. which was only conducted on 13 January 2006 therefore clearly manifesting and that there was no possession yet by the company and M/V Rodolfo Jr. P. Annex V.

had complied / rectified its deficiencies. HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. It is absurd and inappropriate for respondent. I. therefore emphatically manifests that the DISMISSAL ORDER of M/V Rodolfo Jr. on 29 September 2005. ANOMALOUS and ILLEGAL as M/V Rodolfo Jr. in LMRO 05-036 last 29 September 2005 is.The act of the respondent is violative of MARINA Memorandum Circular 139 . UNSCRUPULOUS.mandated Document of Compliance (DOC) / Safety Management Certificate (SMC) even on 13 January 2006 but Director Madarang had already dismissed the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. maybe considered in the absence of the subject DOC”. unsure of her position hereof by mentioning in the Certification to wit: “hence. Exhibit 12 of the complaint therefore belying all its statement in the Dismissal Order that M/V Rodolfo Jr. Respondent certification. INAPPROPRIATE. that even of her stature and position as Director. still and/or really do not have in its possession the required Document of Compliance / Safety Management Certificate (DOC / SMC) not only at the time of its apprehension last 26 February 2005 but specifically also in time when the dismissal was conceptualize or made last 29 September 2006 and further manifesting that there really was no audit that was conducted last 16 September 2005 as justified in the Dismissal Order. MARINA -V she in fact doubted her action. IRREGULAR.

The provisions of respondents’ MARINA Memorandum Circular 139 (Annex X) being violated and that of HPCG MC (Annex Y) clearly provide the imposition of penalty corresponding to the committed violations but does not provide that rectification deficiencies will wipe out offenders violations and the corresponding penalty due thereof neither it specified clemency of fines and sanctions thereof against recalcitrant seafarers and shipping lines. M/V Rodolfo Jr. M/V Rodolfo Jr. .hence. were already rectified and complied upon the inspection of MARINA inspectors on 16 September 2005 as justified / basis for the 29 September 2005 Dismissal Order. 9295 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR) . LCT Don Wilfredo and other Candano Shipping Lines vessels by virtue of MARINA MC 139. Respondent is categorically lying that the PCG deputize function in MARINA MC 139 is misplaced and/or is no longer applicable on the case at bar as it is deemed repealed by the enactment and effectivity of Republic Act No. compliance and rectification thereof does not warrant the dismissal and/or does not wipe out the liability of LCT Don Wilfredo. and M/V Maria Lourdes as the offense / violation was already committed and consummated.. There is no law which provides that violations are extinguished after the rectification of deficiencies therefore offenders can no longer be penalized or penalty can no longer be imposed and collected.Even granting for the sake of argument that the deficiencies of M/V Rodolfo Jr.. respondent interposing objection that petitioner no longer has the authority to adjudicate on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr.

She. 26. the Station Commander (petitioner) still has the ambit authority to conduct adjudication as authorized / embodied in MARINA MC 139. the PCG.. 30 April 2005) and M/V Maria Lourdes (09 April 2005) were respectively committed before the termination of the transition period hence. the termination of the transition period and the full implementation of RA 9295 after its enactment in 2004 is only to effect on 11 June 2005 as agreed upon by MARINA and the PCG as specified in the PCG radio message (Annex Z) disseminated to all PCG units nationwide to wit: “THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR THE FULL IMPLEMENTAITON OF RA 9295 (DOMESTIC SHIPPING ACT) SHALL EXPIRE ON 11 JUNE 05 WHERE ALL VESSEL SAFETY FUNCTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEPUTIZED TO PCG INCLUDING SHIP INSPECTION PRIOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES AND ENFORCEMENT OF COMPLIANCE TO SAFETY RULES AND REGULATIONS SHALL REVERT TO MARINA” The violations of M/V Rodolfo Jr. Respondent contention of Complainants’ ignorance in MARINA MC 139 is a misnomer. LCT Don Wilfredo (15.But to the contrary. 23. Her intentional ignorance could have been considered as just a simple inadvertence if she have not discerned and detected her indifference and superfluous biases in favor of Candano Shipping Lines. . (26 February 2005). being a MARINA-V Regional Director is supposedly to be fully aware of the transition period and/or the termination of the deputized function.

4. 2. 6 and 8 of the complaint and the endorsement of Commo Lalisan in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint. Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint of petitioner’s adjudication of Candano Shipping Lines vessels in Exhibits 1. 6 and 8 of the complaint but respondent deliberately did not instead respondent even requested for the copy of the Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR) of LCT Don Wilfredo prior their appropriate action in Respondent letter last 27 June 2005. 3. Exhibit 18 of the complaint. 4. Regional Director. Annex 6 in response to Respondent 19 July 2005 request for clarification before Director Lamberto PIA relative to the PCG’s termination of deputized function vis-à-vis the enactment of RA 9295.If respondent. thank you and warm regards”. MARINA – V do not honor thier adjudication proceedings in Exhibits 1. On 12 December 2005. should have: (b) Amended or provided them the amendment of their own MARINA MC 139. (c) Strongly manifested their objection as early as April 2005 or in time / after Commo Lalisan’s 19 and 20 May 2005 endorsement. Exhibit 20 of the complaint. . MLAO to Director LMRO. respondent.therefore. 3. PIA. 2. petitioner wrote respondent vehemently expressing his forceful disagreement on Respondent claim in her 07 December 2005 letter Exhibit 17 of the complaint on her firm decision and emphatic defense to Candano Shipping Lines citing provisions of RA 9295 in reference to the 04 August 2005 Memorandum of Lamberto V. Deputy Administrator for Operations and Officer-In-Charge. and in fact assured Complaint by further stating to wit: “the undersigned truly appreciate your action to matters of mutual concern.

conveniently deprive the government of due income. MARINA – V who uses her position to grossly.Being null and void. PIA. Madarang is further fortified by her position being a Regional Director. Philippines RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Petitioner also prays for such other relief as may be just and equitable under the premises. petitioner vehemently disagree with the 04 August 2005 Memorandum (legal opinion) of Lamberto V. it is respectfully prayed that the Ombudsman Decision dated 10 August 2006 be set aside and that a new decision be issued declaring the respondent guilty for violating Sec 5 (e) of Republic Act No. (Annex AA) as it was referred by Respondent for clarification to Director Lamberto PIA only on 19 July 2005 and Director PIA made his legal opinion on 08 August 2005 all of which was made after the lapsed of the transition period. WHEREFORE. in view of the foregoing premises. LOON CORPUZ PATIÑO AND ASSOCIATES . It could be otherwise if it had been referred and adjudged prior the termination of the transition period. Manila. 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and be held administratively liable for Misconduct in office. 2015. MLAO to Director LMRO. The MISCONDUCT and GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY of respondent Lucita T. 08 June . the termination of the PCG’s deputized function on 11 June 2006. It is but understandable therefore that Director Pia’s legal opinion will favor Respondent’s referral. Deputy Administrator for Operations and Officer-In-Charge.

Philippines Tel No. 707854 5-06-15 IBP OR No. Legaspi Extension corner M.2015 PTR OR Copy furnished : . PATIÑO Roll of Attorney No. Cel No. 63966 April 27. 0997508 4-27-15 Cebu City Chapter MCLE COMPLIANCE No. (032) 254-0453.(Counsel of the Accused) G/F GMC Plaza Bldg. 09178180767 By: JURIL B. Exempt-New Passer Email add: juril. Cebu City.J Cuenco St.

LUCITA T MADARANG Regional Director Maritime Industry Authority Legazpi Maritime Regional Office No. Juril Broka Patiño Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Agham Road. Rizal St.. V 2nd Floor RCBC Bldg. Legazpi City Explanation Copy of this petition was furnished to respondent through registered mail due to distance and lack personnel to do the personal service. Diliman Quezon City .

That I am the petitioner in the above-captioned case . married. with residence located at 266 Barangay Sampaloc. Juril Broka Patiño VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING I. Ricardo J. . Alivio. after being sworn to in accordance with law.Explanation Copy of this petition was furnished to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon through registered mail due to distance and lack personnel to do the personal service. Philippines. of legal age. San Rafael. do hereby deposes and states : 1. Bulacan.

Ricardo J. a complete statement of the present status thereof . no such other action or claim is pending therein . Philippines. 3. or quasi-judicial agency and to the best of my knowledge. and c. tribunal. If we should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending.2. That we have not theretofore commenced any action of any claim involving the same issues in any court. That I have caused the preparation and filing of this petition . Alivio Affiant . b. I have hereunto set my hand this 8th of June 2015 at Manila. If there is such other pending action or claim. we shall report the fact within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein our aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. That I have read the contents thereof and that the same true correct to the best of my personal knowledge or based on authentic records . That I further states : a. 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF.

issued on _______________ and valid until ________________________ who is the same person who personally signed before me the foregoing Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping and acknowledge that they executed the same. who has satisfactorily proven his identity to me through his____________ No. Philippines. ________ Page No. Doc No.________ . Alivio.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________ in Cebu City. by Ricardo J.________________ issued at _________________________.

_______ Series of ________ .Book No.