The Supreme Court recently upheld the dismissal of former Bureau of Customs (BOC) Deputy Commissioner Atty. Gil A. Valera for grave misconduct for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713). 

In a 22-page decision penned by Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Court’s First Division affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) upholding the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman ordering the dismissal of Valera for unlawfully entering into a compromise agreement with Steel Asia Manufacturing Corporation (SAMC). The agreement granted SAMC waiver of PhP14,762,467.70 representing legal interest, surcharges, litigation expenses, and damages.

Valera was also found to have caused the employment of his brother-in-law in a private enterprise which regularly conducts transactions with BOC and to have violated EO 298, which provides guidelines for the foreign travel of government personnel, for traveling to Hong Kong without the proper authority.

In the absence of any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness on the Ombudsman’s findings and in light of Valera’s own admissions, the Court found substantial evidence sufficient to prove the allegations against him. On the first charge of unlawfully dealing with SAMC, the Court ruled that the approval of both the Commissioner of Customs, as required by the Tariff and Customs Code, and the President, under EO 156 as amended by EO 38, is necessary in the enactment of compromise agreements involving tax credit scams. It also emphasized that failure of the President to reverse the settlement does not constitute as approval, neither does the knowledge nor concurrence of Valera’s superiors suffice as the approval of the President. 

As for the second charge, the Court clarified that “brother-in-law” falls within the definition of “family” under RA 3019. The Court also held that RA 6713 does not limit to family members the persons prohibited to be recommended by a public officer in private enterprises with regular transactions with the officer’s office.

The Court finally ruled that Valera was liable for traveling abroad without the proper clearance even though at the time he was subjected to a temporary restraining order (TRO) directing him to refrain from holding his office. The Court held that such TRO did not have the effect of preventing Valera from discharging his duties nor of divesting him of the public character of his office. (GR No. 167278, Valera v. Ombudsman, et al., February 27, 2008)