THE Court of Appeals has ordered the reinstatement of an immigration officer who was dismissed after failing to spot and prevent two Filipino women victims of human trafficking from leaving the country in 2013.
In a 32-page decision promulgated on February 17, the appellate court’s Thirteenth Division through Associate Justice Mary Josephine Lazaro ordered the Bureau of Immigration to reinstate Chris Edward Gumboc without loss of seniority rights.
The court also ordered the payment of Gumboc’s back salaries and all accrued benefits with legal interest from November 2020, when he was dismissed from his post.
The CA granted Gumboc’s petition for certiorari against the decision dated November 25, 2020, and a resolution dated April 27, 2023 issued by Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla affirming his dismissal from his post as an officer in the Bureau of Immigration’s Travel Control and Enforcement Unit (TCEU).
Gumboc, a recipient of a commendation from the Office of the President for his part in the rescue of 10 potential victims of human trafficking on February 2023 at the Mactan-Cebu International Airport, found himself charged with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service eight months later.
The two women who posed as tourists were able to work as entertainers in Singapore but were held against their will by a bar owner and required to have sex with customers to pay off debt accrued for transportation and travel papers, according to the charge sheet against Gumboc.
It said the two women left without the proper departure formalities and/or Overseas Employment Certificates, and that another immigration officer was paid P20,000 to facilitate their departure.
Gumboc contested his dismissal from the service, saying Remulla committed grave abuse of discretion when he issued the decision and resolution without observing the nine stages of administrative case as outlined under the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, particularly the conduct of a formal investigation, and by deciding on his guilt despite lack of substantial evidence.
NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
In its ruling, the CA said Gumboc was afforded the right to be heard as a formal investigation was conducted by the BI and received by the DOJ on December 4, 2019.
But it said it found Gumboc’s petition meritorious considering that the penalty of outright dismissal from government service with forfeiture of benefits is too severe under the circumstances and for not being supported by substantial evidence.
“It is beyond question that the petitioner followed the existing memorandum as his guide for secondary inspection. Thus, petitioner’s actions do not denote a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his duty. Therefore, the court finds that petitioner’s act falls short of being considered as gross neglect of duty,” the CA ruling said.
“Stated elsewise, there is no blatant disregard of duty on the part of the petitioner,” it said.
Concurring with the decision are Associate Justices Pablito Perez and Lorenza Bordios.
