Ombudsman junks graft, plunder complaints vs. Duty Free Philippines execs

The Office of the Ombudsman cleared four former and incumbent Duty Free Philippines Corporation (DFPC) officials of graft, plunder and other related administrative complaints in connection with alleged deprivation of employee benefits.

In a 22-page decision, the Office of the Ombudsman said there is no probable cause to charge DFPC chief operating officer (COO) Pelagio Angala, former DFPC COO Lorenzo Formoso, former DFPC human resources management division manager Roberto Policarpio and DFPC physical distribution department manager Manolito Canlas.

The former and incumbent company officials were accused by certain DFPC employees hired under DFP Services, Inc. of depriving them of their benefits.

The court however said the complainants failed to prove that there was overpayment of fees to DFP Services, Inc. from 1998 to 2016, the period when DFP Services Inc. did not recognize that certain employees of DFPC—the complainants in this case—were direct hires by DFPC as stated in a 1998 Supreme Court ruling.

The complainants were DFPC logistics division workers Alexander Sablan, Nestor Zabala, Eric Oracion, Carlito Ardales, Nilo Duarte and Joaquin Vibal, store supervisor Ernesto Mangalindan, stock clerk Francis Daco, and merchandising assistants Romeo Silva Jr. and Rizalino Santos.

“This Office is not persuaded. Other than the COA Audit Reports, no other relevant evidence was proffered by complainants to substantiate their claims,” the Office of the Ombudsman said.

“The detailed findings and recommendations of COA cannot be solely relied upon to indict respondents for the offenses attributed to them,” the Ombudsman added.

Moreover, the Ombudsman said that unlike a Notice of Disallowance issued by the COA which is considered final, the findings and recommendations of the COA Audit Reports are not conclusive.

The said reports are but mere observation containing preliminary findings of possible misapplication of public funds or illegal expenditure meant to notify the agency head and concerned officers of deficiencies in the audit accounts, operations or transactions and requiring comments thereto and/or submission of documents and other information within a reasonable period for possible rectification, the court added.

The Ombudsman said non-issuance by COA of a Notice of Disallowance on the questioned transactions and expenditures of DFPC with DFP Services, Inc. negates the accusation that respondents illegally amassed wealth or that they entered into a contract or transaction grossly disadvantageous to the government.

“Mere initial audit report or suspicion of irregularity committed by respondents in the performance of their function is not enough to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty,” the Ombudsman added. —KG, GMA News