Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

____________
DIVISION

RICARLITO J. ALIVIO

Petitioner,

- versus -

C.A. Case No ______

LUCITA T. MADARANG, SALARY GRADE 26

Director
Maritime Industry Authority
Regional Office No. V, Legaspi City

Respondent

x---------------------------------------------------------------------x

PETITION FOR REVIEW 1

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

state :

I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT

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 Offices
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
brevity.

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)

II.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES

Notice of the said Ombudsman Decision was received by herein

petitioner on 20 March 2015. 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. However,
on 30 April 2015, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman in its Joint Order
denied the motion for reconsideration. Notice of the said Joint Order was
received by the complainant on 28 May 2015. The 15-day reglementary
period ends on 13 June 2015. Thus, this petition for review is filed within
the reglementary period.

III.
PARTIES

Pettioner Ricardo J. Alivio is a retired Coast Guard Station

Commander and is presently residing at 266 Barangay Sampaloc, San
Rafael, Bulacan, Philippines. He is represented by herein counsel.

Respondent, on the other hand, is Lucita Madarang , Director of the

Maritime Industry Authority Regional Office No. V., Legazpi City where
she may be served with summons and other processes by this Honorable
Court.
IV.

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. 3019 and OMB-L-A-060251-C for Misconduct dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner
against the respondent.
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. Simply
put, the Ombudsman decision was done in haste and no real consideration
on the evidences attached to the complaint submitted by the petitioner.
This is largely a mixed question of facts and of law particularly Sec. 3(e)
of Republic Act 3019 otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act which provides, to wit :
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition
to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing
law, 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, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his official
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
The petitioner who is an advocate of a clean and honest government
and a dedicated public service is becoming frail enough to seek solution

of this epidemic corruption in the country upon learning of the railroaded

Ombudsman Decision. However, 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.A.
3019 and is administratively liable for misconduct in office.
IV.
DISCUSSION
A. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman
did not make a real and honest investigation
and consideration of the case rendering its
decision void.
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.

The petitioner has been waiting for the respondents and/or

Ombudsman action since his filing of the case against respondent in 06
January 2006.

It was on 26 October 2006, that petitioner sent a letter to the

Honorable Ombudsman (Annex B) inquiring as to the status of the
complaint against Dr. Nestor F. Santiago Jr. et.al., Commander Ireneo
Endozo Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and Respondent, Director Lucita
T. Madarang.

After four (4) years of petitioners letter in inquiry in Annex B, the

Honorable Ombudsman finally answered it on 9 February 2010, (Annex
C) specifying that the case against Director Madarang docketed as OMBL-C-06-0341-C
(criminal
aspect)
and
OMBL-A-06-0251-C
(administrative aspect) has been submitted for final review and approval
but it failed to specify that four (4) years ago, 10 August 2006, the
Honorable Ombudsman had already decided the case against Director
Madarang even two (2) months before petitioners letter in Annex B.

Since petitioner is the one who prepared the instant motion, the
same was submitted only on 20 April 2015, 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 D).

The petitioner was pre-occupied in the police appearances,

documentation and the preparation of his Complaint Affidavit and that of
the Joint Complaint Affidavit of Mr. Arturo Torbiso and Mike Biadnes
and subsequent filing of the case against Barangay Captain Arnel Cruz
et.al. for Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority; Violation of AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA-3019); Violation of Domicile ART.
128, RPC; Malicious Mischief, ART. 327, RPC; Theft, ART. 308, RPC;
Grave Threat, ART. 282, RPC; Violation of RA 6713; Violation of RA 9994; Violation of RA -7279; Violation of PD 1866 and filed before the
Honorable Ombudsman on 8 April 2015, (Annex E and F)(Please see
receipt of the Ombudsman of aforesaid complaint).

As specified in the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision,

respondent was required to submit her counter Affidavit on 6 April 2006
but categorically, petitioner has not received the counter affidavit neither a
position paper from the respondent. As stated in the 10 August 2006
Ombudsman Decision, petitioner was furnished with a copy of such using
the address Coast Guard Station Legaspi, Pier Site, Legaspi City, however
petitioner categorically denied having received copy of the 10 August
2006 Ombudsman Decision. If indeed, respondents counter affidavit

and the Ombudsman Decision were forwarded to the aforesaid address,

Coast Station Legaspi denied receipt thereof and has not forwarded both
copies to petitioner through the Coast Guard Adjutant, Headquarters
Philippine Coast Guard, Port Area, Manila, the message center of the
Philippine Coast Guard, for his(petitioner) cognizance, perusal and
appropriate action.

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.
Tuason unceremoniously relieved petitioner of his post as Station
Commander, Coast Station Legaspi on 20 January 2006 three (3) days
after the latters assumption as Commander of Coast Guard District Bicol
and fourteen (14) days after the petitioners filing of his complaint against
Director Lucita T. Madarang, MARINA V. before the Office of the
Honorable Ombudsman.

Subsequent to Complainants unceremonious relief, Capt. Tuason

charged petitioner with fabricated cases on 02 February 2006 relative to
petitioners disposition on M/V Rodolfo Jr. 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. Tuason and others riotous
dissemination of libelous radio messages against petitioner to all PCG
units nationwide and in fact, unfairly indicted petitioner on the fabricated
charges that lead to his illegal retirement from the PCG service.It is
crystal clear that Capt. 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.

All of respondents assertions and that of the espoused or advocated

contentions in the 10 August 2006 Ombudsman Decision in can all be
crashed, subverted, denounced, rebutted and rejected by all of the

petitioners presentation and attachments in his complaint against

respondent most specifically on Exhibits 10, 13, 14, 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 petitioners charges
against her. Exhibits 10, 13, 14, 16 and 18 of the complaint (Annex H)
serves as petitioners 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. and LCT Don Wifredo in
paragraph 12 of the complaint as the respondent has no legal rights to
encroach, usurp, dispose on PCG functions or to dismiss PCG
Memorandum Circular violations as the PCG is not under MARINA but
respondent never gave a damn, instead, 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,as 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, I am now therefore constrained to submit this matter for
adjudication to the office of the Ombudsman..

B. Respondent is lying of having

real pieces of evidence.

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. 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

of M/V Rodolfo Jr). The PCG was the one conducting inspection,
boarding procedures and issued the Inspection Apprehension Report
(IAR) and the adjudication of their maritime violation not MARINA nor
the respondent. Hence, the evidence is with Coast Guard Station Legazpi
not with respondent. It is the respondent actions to the contrary that are
conjectures and surmises as she doesnt have the evidence.

Coast Guard Station Legazpis action are proper and factual as all
of our apprehensions were supported by documentary evidence such as
Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR), 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, PCG MC or MARINA MC violations alike.
Likewise, Master and Candano Shipping Lines representatives admitted
the commissions of maritime violations during CGS Legaspis hearing
and Candano Shipping Lines paid / were receipted of their fines on PCG
violations.

C.Respondent is lying that she

accorded Due Process the respondent
shipping companies.

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
petitioners adjudication in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the complaint
(Annex J) as endorsed by COMMO LALISAN in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the

complaint (Annex K) at the expense of the PCG, the apprehending unit

and petitioner, 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
(P540,000.00) on MARINA Memorandum Circular violations alone.
Two Hundred Sixty Thousand (P260,000.00) for M/V Rodolfo Jr.,One
Hundred Twenty Five (P125,000.00) for LCT Don Wilfredo, and One
Hundred Fifty Five Thousand Pesos (P155,000) 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, master of M/V Rodolfo Jr. which is in gross violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act - 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.

If due process was observed hereof, 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,
the one issuing the Inspection and Apprehension Report (IAR),
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. 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.

Respondents deliberate inaction hereto only legibly portrayed

respondents biases in favor to maritime violators, Candano Shipping
Lines and its crew which constitutes graft and corrupt practice.

D.Respondent wantonly disregarded Commo

Antonio Lalisans Endorsement on the
cases of Candano Shipping Lines Vessels

Commo Antonio C Lalisan, the Commander of Coast Guard

District Bicol of the PCG, finding justifiable merit on petitioners
adjudication proceedings on Candano Shipping Lines vessels concurs and
formally endorses, Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint and his adjudication
in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the complaint to respondent for the
collection of the payment on MARINA violations and imposition of
sanctions, the cancellation of CPC / PA / SP on Candano Shipping Lines
and cancellation of SIRB / STCW Endorsement Certificate of CAPT
Nathaniel Latorena, master M/V Rodolfo Jr. and Capt Carlos Caparoso,
master of LCT Don Wilfredo as it is within the ambit of the functions of
respondents office, MARINA.

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, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the complaint as
well as Commo Lalisans endorsement in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the
complaint. 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 petitioners
letter to respondent in Exhibit 19 of the complaint. Respondent however
deliberately and wantonly proceeded on the dismissal of the case of M/V
Rodolfo Jr. and LCT Don Wilfredo in Exhibits 12 of the complaint
(Annex L) and likewise deliberately disregarded and discarded Commo
Lalisans 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.

It is the duty of the respondent to notify or summon the petitioner,

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, the Hearing Officer or Commo Lalisan
can support or prove the truthfulness or validity of the proceedings and
elaborate thier actions, findings and recommendation or might as well
stand as complainant of the case. 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
petitioners adjudication in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 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.

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, 2, 3, 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, master LCT Don
Wilfredo.

E.Respondents grant of clemency

for

non - payment of

candano

shipping lines

fines of
vessels

is illegal, grossly unethical,unprofessional

and anomalous.

Respondents act of granting clemency on Candano Shipping Lines

and vessels is clearly illegal, grossly unethical, 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, master LCT Don
Wilfredo and Capt Nathaniel Latorena, master M/V Rodolfo Jr. 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 respondents office to dismiss such.

The petitioners overwhelming disappointment on respondents

dismissal of the case of Candano Shipping Lines vessels and her wanton
disregard of Commo Lalisans endorsement was expressly stipulated in
paragraph 7 in his 21 November 2005 letter to respondent, 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, 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.
.. The total collectible penalty on Candano Shipping Lines for
MARINA violations is P540,000.00. Why, 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, adversely

affected and felt insulted as to why respondent, MARINA V is so
indifferent to thier adjudication proceedings when other MARINA

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.

With respondent foregoing actions, 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 respondents concern.

Further, 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.
Enrile, Director, NBI Legazpi on 12 April 2005 for further investigation
and dispositive action while the case against Dr. Nestor F. Santiago Jr.
and et.al. in violation to R.A 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
was filed before the Ombudsman on 06 January 2005. 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 - V subscribe or sympathetic to Candano Shipping
Lines despite the forward presentation, please do not include us, the PCG
as we still have our delicadeza and dignity left to contend with pride.

.
F. Vehement protest on respondents

anomalous dismissal on the cases of

M/V Rodolfo Jr. and LCT Don Wilfredo

Respondent is categorically lying that those deficiencies of

Candano Shipping Lines vessels were already rectified upon their
inspection hence, her dismissal of their cases thereof but to the contrary.

On 22 October 2005, petitioner wrote respondent, Exhibit 13 of the

complaint, (Annex N) manifesting his strong protest or complaint for the
29 September 2005 dismissal of the case of M/V Rodolfo in Cases Nos.
LMRO (SC0) 05-036 and LCT Don Wilfredo in LMRO (SCO) 05-037,
(Exhibit 12 of the complaint) as it is defective, highly questionable,
inappropriate, irregular, 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, dispose
PCG functions which are beyond the jurisdiction of his office so much so
of ignoring or discounting the PCGs imposition of penalty due to M/V
Rodolfo Jr.

Respondent was practically usurping the PCG functions by

obviously dismissing the PCG violations as clearly specified in the
dismissal order. On the listed violations of M/V Rodolfo Jr. in the
Inspection Apprehension Report (IAR), the respondents, as Director, of
MARINA V, only primary concern therein is the non-possession of
Document of Compliance (DOC) / Safety Management Certificate and no
port and starboard anchor. Both are major MARINA violations that
warrant M/V Rodolfo Jr. detention.

Respondent deliberately failed to discuss in her dismissal the no

port and starboard anchor, 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. Petitioner candidly
impressed upon respondent in his 22 October 2005, Exhibit 13 of the
complaint that Coast Station Legazpi to wit:

Candidly, we felt insulted by your actions especially so that our

diligent efforts and service were only put to naught and further putting us,
the apprehending element in the laughing stock.

G. Respondents assertions on the

rectification and compliance
of defeciencies of MV Rodolfo Jr.
were false and devoid of truth.

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. on 16
September 2005 on the compliance, rectification of its noted deficiencies
i.e. 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.

The Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate of Compliance (OPPC) of

M/V Rodolfo Jr. was only issued and granted by Commo Antonio C
Lalisan PCG on 18 October 2005, (Annex O). While the Accreditation of
the CYSC-0.5 Type Oily-Water Separator (OWS) was only issued and
signed by VADM GOSINGAN on 06 October 2005, (Annex P) and the
radio message directing Station Commander, CGS Legazpi for the
conduct of the inspection of the CYSC-0.5 Type Oily-Water Separator
(OWS) of M/V Rodolfo Jr. was only dispatched on 17 January 2006,
(Annex Q) followed by the 18 January 2006 Letter Order of LCDR
Nelson Torre to 9MEPU, CGD Bicol for the conduct of the inspection
(Annex R).

Relative hereto, the inspection of the CYSC-0.5 Type Oily-Water

Separator (OWS) and OPPC of M/V Rodolfo Jr. and was only
respectively conducted by CGS Legazpi on 18 January 2006 per its Vessel
Inspection Report, (Annex S) and CG Detachment Tabaco radio message,
Inspection Report, (Annex T). Likewise 9MEPU, CGD Bicol only
conducted the inspection of the OPPC and OWS of M/V Rodolfo Jr. on 19
January 2006 per its After Inspection Report to SC, CGS Legazpi on the
MARPOL Equipment of M/V Rodolfo Jr. and other related documents
(Annex U).

The 18 January 2006 per its Vessel Inspection Report, had in fact
specifies the non-compliance of M/V Rodolfo Jr. of its deficiencies where
it was recommended therein for re-inspection and compliance prior
departure. Likewise inspection by Coast Guard Detachment Tabaco in its
18 January 2006 radio message also specifies non-rectification of its
deficiencies.

Categorically therefore, M/V Rodolfo Jr. only possesses both the

OWS and OPPC, eight (8) months after the apprehension and issuance of
the IAR (26 February 2005) for non-possession thereof; seven (7) months
(12 April 2005) after petitioners adjudication of the IAR, (and twenty
(20) days after the dismissal (28 September 2005) of Director Madarang

on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. This is notwithstanding on other

documentary justifications in Annexes O, P, Q, R, S, T and U and in her
to her 20 January 2006 certification, Annex V.

Respondents inconsistent statements / pronouncement in her

Dismissal Order further proved the anomalous dismissal thereof. How
could respondent says the violation was rectified when her subsequent
statement only shows the payment for the companys 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. of the DOC / SMC but Director
MADARANG dismissed the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr. on 29 September
2005?

H. Respondents certification further

points on his anomalous dismissal
on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr.
and LCT Don Wilfredo

On 20 January 2006, respondent furnished Coast Guard Station

Legazpi a certification, (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.

Respondents 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. of the

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. on 29 September 2005,
Exhibit 12 of the complaint therefore belying all its statement in the
Dismissal Order that M/V Rodolfo Jr. had complied / rectified its
deficiencies.

Respondent certification, therefore emphatically manifests that the

DISMISSAL ORDER of M/V Rodolfo Jr. in LMRO 05-036 last 29
September 2005 is, UNSCRUPULOUS, HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE,
INAPPROPRIATE, IRREGULAR, ANOMALOUS and ILLEGAL as
M/V Rodolfo Jr. 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.

It is absurd and inappropriate for respondent, that even of her

stature and position as Director, MARINA -V she in fact doubted her
action, unsure of her position hereof by mentioning in the Certification to
wit:

hence, maybe considered in the absence of the subject DOC.

I.The act of the respondent is violative

of MARINA Memorandum Circular 139

Even granting for the sake of argument that the deficiencies of M/V
Rodolfo Jr. 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, M/V Rodolfo Jr., compliance and
rectification thereof does not warrant the dismissal and/or does not wipe
out the liability of LCT Don Wilfredo, M/V Rodolfo Jr. 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.

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.

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. 9295 and its implementing rules and regulations
(IRR) ,hence, respondent interposing objection that petitioner no longer
has the authority to adjudicate on the case of M/V Rodolfo Jr., LCT Don
Wilfredo and other Candano Shipping Lines vessels by virtue of
MARINA MC 139.

But to the contrary, 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., (26 February 2005); LCT Don
Wilfredo (15, 23, 26, 30 April 2005) and M/V Maria Lourdes (09 April
2005) were respectively committed before the termination of the
transition period hence, the PCG, the Station Commander (petitioner) still
has the ambit authority to conduct adjudication as authorized / embodied
in MARINA MC 139.

Respondent contention of Complainants ignorance in MARINA

MC 139 is a misnomer. She, being a MARINA-V Regional Director is
supposedly to be fully aware of the transition period and/or the
termination of the deputized function. 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.

If respondent, Regional Director, MARINA V do not honor thier

adjudication proceedings in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the complaint
and the endorsement of Commo Lalisan in Exhibits 5 and 9 of the
complaint, respondent,therefore, 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 Lalisans 19 and 20 May 2005
endorsement, Exhibits 5 and 9 of the complaint of
petitioners adjudication of Candano Shipping Lines vessels
in Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 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, Exhibit 20 of the
complaint, and in fact assured Complaint by further stating to
wit:
the undersigned truly appreciate your action to matters of
mutual concern, thank you and warm regards.
On 12 December 2005, Exhibit 18 of the complaint, 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. PIA, Deputy Administrator for
Operations and Officer-In-Charge, MLAO to Director LMRO, Annex 6 in
response to Respondent 19 July 2005 request for clarification before
Director Lamberto PIA relative to the PCGs termination of deputized
function vis--vis the enactment of RA 9295.

Being null and void, petitioner vehemently disagree with the 04

August 2005 Memorandum (legal opinion) of Lamberto V. PIA, Deputy
Administrator for Operations and Officer-In-Charge, MLAO to Director
LMRO, (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, the termination of the PCGs deputized function on
11 June 2006.

It is but understandable therefore that Director Pias legal opinion

will favor Respondents referral. It could be otherwise if it had been
referred and adjudged prior the termination of the transition period.

The MISCONDUCT and GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY of

respondent Lucita T. Madarang is further fortified by her position being a
Regional Director, MARINA V who uses her position to grossly,
conveniently deprive the government of due income.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, 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. 3019
otherwise known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and be
held administratively liable for Misconduct in office.
Petitioner also prays for such other relief as may be just and
equitable under the premises.
08 June , 2015, Manila, Philippines
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

LOON CORPUZ PATIO AND ASSOCIATES

(Counsel of the Accused)

G/F GMC Plaza Bldg. Legaspi Extension
corner M.J Cuenco St, Cebu City, Philippines
Tel No. (032) 254-0453; Cel No. 09178180767

By:

JURIL B. PATIO
Roll of Attorney No. 63966 April 27,2015
PTR OR No. 707854 5-06-15
IBP OR No. 0997508 4-27-15 Cebu City Chapter
MCLE COMPLIANCE No. Exempt-New Passer
Email add: juril.patino@yahoo.com

Copy furnished :

LUCITA T MADARANG
Regional Director
Maritime Industry Authority
Legazpi Maritime Regional Office No. V
2nd Floor RCBC Bldg., Rizal St.
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.

Juril Broka Patio

Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

Agham Road, Diliman Quezon City

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.

Juril Broka Patio

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

I, Ricardo J. Alivio, of legal age, married, with residence located at

266 Barangay Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan, Philippines. after being
sworn to in accordance with law, do hereby deposes and states :
1.

That I am the petitioner in the above-captioned case ;

2.

That I have caused the preparation and filing of this petition ;

3. 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 ;
4. That I further states :
a. That we have not theretofore commenced any action of any claim
involving the same issues in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial agency
and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending
therein ;
b. If there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof ; and
c. If we should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has
been filed or is pending, we shall report the fact within five (5) days
therefrom to the court wherein our aforesaid complaint or initiatory
pleading has been filed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th of

June 2015 at Manila, Philippines.

Ricardo J. Alivio
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ______________

in Cebu City, Philippines, by Ricardo J. Alivio, who has satisfactorily
proven his identity to me through his____________
No.________________ issued at _________________________, 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.

Doc No. ________

Page No.________

Book No. _______

Series of ________