The Court of Appeals (CA) has dismissed the petition filed by two Bureau of Immigration (BI) officers who wanted the Department of Justice (DOJ) to junk their administrative cases for their alleged involvement in the “Pastillas” bribery scheme.
Records of the Senate’s February 2020 investigation showed that the “Pastillas Scheme” reportedly perpetrated by some BI officers and employees allegedly “paved the way towards the unabated entry into the Philippines of Chinese nationals.”
The scheme was called “Pastillas” because “the bribe money, serving as consideration for the illicit entry of the foreign national, was supposedly rolled up in a manner that resembles a pastillas de leche treat, a popular Filipino milk-based candy.”
Denied was the petition filed by Abdu Fahad Calaca and Phol Bendana Villanueva, two of several BI officers administratively charged with grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Calaca and Villanueva challenged before the CA the DOJ’s denial of their motion to dismiss the charges.
In a resolution written by Associate Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, the CA said that “the assailed DOJ Order is a mere interlocutory order, considering that it merely denied the motion for reconsideration of the DOJ Order dated Aug. 10, 2021, which is likewise an interlocutory order since it denied petitioners' motion to dismiss the administrative case and ordered the continuation of the proceedings therein.”
“Thus, the assailed Order is not an award, judgment, final order, or final resolution of a quasi-judicial agency from which an appeal may be bought via a petition for review...,” the CA said.
“The Supreme Court has proscribed an appeal from an order denying a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. An order denying a motion to dismiss an action is interlocutory, hence, not appealable,” it said.
It pointed out that the “rationale behind the rule proscribing the remedy of appeal from an interlocutory order is to prevent undue delay, useless appeals and undue inconvenience to the appealing party by having to assail orders as they are promulgated by the court or quasi-judicial agency, when they can be contested in a single appeal.”
It stressed that “the appropriate remedy is thus for the party to wait for the final judgment or order and assign such interlocutory order as an error of the court on appeal.”
BI Commissioner Jaime H. Morente formed a Fact-finding Investigation Committee (FFIC) to look into the alleged irregularity. On Feb. 20, 2020, the FFIC issued a show cause order to all concerned BI employees, which included Calaca and Villanueva.
Thereafter, the FFIC issued a report finding prima facie case for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against the petitioners and other BI personnel.
On Oct. 23, 2020, Justice Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra issued a formal charge for grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against the two and several other BI officials and employees.
Calaca and Villanueva filed a motion to dismiss the charges. When their motion and plea for reconsideration were dismissed, they filed a petition which was denied by the CA.