THE Court of Appeals has denied the appeal of former Metro Rail Transit Authority general manager Al Vitangcol III to overturn its earlier decision upholding the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman finding him administratively liable for trying to extort $30 million from Inekon, a Czech supplier.
In its resolution, the CA’s former Eighth Division ruled that Vitangcol failed to raise new arguments to warrant the reversal of its July 3, 2017 decision.
“We do not find any bona fide effort on the part of Vitangcol to present additional matters or reiterate his arguments in a different light. Thus, there is no need to reconsider or revisit what was already presented before this Court when we rendered the July 3, 2017 decision,” the appellate court said.
The CA said even granting Vitangcol’s request to issue a subpoena commanding National Bureau of Investigation Director Dante Gierran to produce the final report of agent Jose Gabriel Jr., and James Calleja, which purportedly exonerated him, would not help Vitangcol’s case.
“Here, while Vitangcol has sufficiently designated and described the document requested to be subpoenaed, he failed to show its relevance to the instant controversy,” the appellate court ruled.
The CA noted that Vitangcol admitted that the final report was merely submitted to then Director Virgilio Mendez, who in turn disregarded the conclusion and recommended that complaints be filed against him.
“On this score alone, the final report cannot be construed as ‘a solid proof’ of Vitnagcol’s innocence,” the CA said.
Associate Justices Celia Librea-Leagogo and Amy Lazaro-Javier concurred with the ruling.
In its July 3, 2017 decision penned by Associate Justice Pedro Corales, the appellate court denied the petition for review filed by Vitangcol seeking the reversal of the Ombudsman’s joint order issued on Feb. 12, 2016 and June 14, 2016.
The Ombudsman’s resolution found Vitangcol guilty of two counts each of grave misconduct, serious dishonesty, and unlawful solicitation and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.
The appellate court did not give credence to Vitangcol’s defense that the Ombudsman had lost disciplinary authority over him as he was no longer a public officer at the time the complaint was filed and the case was rendered moot and academic by his resignation prior to its filing.
Vitangcol resigned on May 27, 2014 while the complaint against him was filed on June 23, 2014.
The charges are in relation to the awarding of the contract for the P3.7 billion ($80.16 million) MRT 3 expansion project in 2012.
The appellate court also dismissed Vitangcol’s claim of political persecution for exposing anomalies committed by some officials of the Department of Transportation and Communications in connection with the operations of MRT 3.
It held that Vitangcol’s attempts to extort money from Inekon and compel the company to enter into a joint venture agreement were sufficiently proven by Czech Ambassador Josef Rychtar and Inekon representative Joseph Husek’s sworn statements.
The appellate court noted that the statements sufficiently detailed how the meetings were conducted, the proposals made, and the amount asked by Vitangcol for the contract.
It said Vitangcol failed to present any evidence to counter the declarations of Husek and Rychtar.