An immigration officer who was ordered dismissed in 2020 for his failure to detect and prevent two Filipino victims of human trafficking from leaving the country in 2012 has been ordered reinstated to his post by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Ordered reinstated without loss of seniority rights and paid his back salaries and all accrued benefits was Chris Edward J. Gumboc who was then assigned at the Mactan-Cebu International Airport (MCIA).

The CA, in a decision written by Associate Justice Mary Josephine P. Lazaro, annulled and set aside the Nov. 25, 2020 decision of the Department of Justice (DOJ) that ordered Gumboc’s dismissal and the April 17, 2023 resolution that affirmed his separation from the Bureau of Immigration (BI).

During the pendency of his appeal before the DOJ, Gumboc took the 2022 Bar examinations and passed.  However, he could not take his oath to become a full-fledged lawyer because of the pendency of his administrative case.

Gumboc was charged with grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service eight months after the two women left the country.

He allegedly allowed the two women to leave the country without the proper departure formalities and/or overseas employment certificates and that P20,000 was paid to an immigration officer.

The two women posted themselves as tourists bound for Singapore. Later, they were held against their will by the bar owner in Singapore and required to have sex with customers to pay off their debts for transportation and travel documents.

The BI’s investigation report stated that “had Gumboc gave the proper attention to the task expected of him as a TCEU (travel control and enforcement unit) officer, he would have detected that both passengers were vulnerable to being victims of human trafficking and illegal recruitment.”

Gumboc challenged his dismissal from the service but failed.  He elevated the DOJ’s ruling before the CA.

Ruling in favor of Gumboc, the CA found his appeal meritorious as it pointed out that the penalty of his outright dismissal from government service with forfeiture of benefits is too severe for not being supported by substantial evidence.

The CA said:

“It is beyond question that the petitioner (Gumboc) followed the existing memorandum as his guide for secondary inspection. Thus, petitioner’s actions do not denote a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform his duty. 

“Therefore, the court finds that petitioner's act falls short to be considered as gross neglect of duty. Considering further that petitioner followed the above memorandum, his failure to detect (the two women) as victims of human trafficking is not the disregard of duty resulting from carelessness or indifference as contemplated by law. 

“Stated elsewise, there is no blatant disregard of duty on the part of the petitioner.

“To repeat, petitioner followed the existing memorandum as his guide for secondary inspection. Albeit short, petitioner still performed his duty demanded from him. 

“To Our mind, petitioner is not expected to be infallible so as to negate any room of mistake on his part. Although We agree that he failed to detect that (the two women) were victims of human trafficking, this fact alone does not constitute grave misconduct as the same was not supported by any evidence that his failure to do so is tainted with corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules. 

“There may be an error of judgment on the part of the petitioner but this cannot be equated, in the absence of substantial evidence, that he did so in bad faith or with corrupt intent.

“None of the petitioner's act tarnished the image of his public office. In fact, during the same day of the incident, there were several passengersreferred to him for secondary inspection together (the two women) wherein he disallowed two passengers to travel as shown in the list.

“What is more, barely eight months before the formal charge was filed against him, petitioner received a Commendation from the Office of the President in grateful recognition and acknowledgement of his efforts as part of the Operating Team that successfully intercepted 10 potential victims of human trafficking on Feb. 27, 2013 inside Mactan-Cebu International Airport.

“To Our mind, this recognition negates any form of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules.

“All told, in the present case, no substantial evidence was shown to prove that petitioner benefited from his acts. Absent any evidence establishing corruption and bad faith, petitioner therefore cannot be held liable for grave misconduct, or any other grave offense classified under the Civil Service Law.

“Although ideal, it is not at all times, that an Immigration Officer can successfully detect a person victim of human trafficking. While strict adherence to the rules is a must, they are not magicians who can determine with exact precision or perfect accuracy whether a person is indeed a victim of this sad crime. 

“What is important is that an Immigration Officer is mindful of his or her duty who carefully observes the parameters set by law and exercises sound judgment in an effort to determine whether or not a person is actually a victim of human trafficking. 

“If it is otherwise, every time an Immigration Officer misses to detect a victim, such failure will automatically subject him to charges under the pain of penalty of losing his or her job. 

“Therefore, sans any evidence proving that an Immigration Officer willfully neglected his or her duty with deliberate intent to ignore or depart from observing the proper protocols required of him or her thereby showing manifest bad faith and corrupt judgment, an allegation of misconduct cannot be sustained. 

“Verily, if every time an Immigration Officer will be facing charges for failing to detect a victim of human trafficking, without any evidence of neglect of duty, the presumption of regularity, accorded in his or her favor, in the performance of his or her official duty, disputable it

may be, is all for naught. 

“Essentially, the circumstances in this case show the lack of element of corruption. Even though petitioner failed to detect (the two women) as victims of human trafficking, it cannot be concluded in the absence of substantial evidence, that he did so with either a corrupt or a clear willful intent as to amount to an open defiance or a flagrant disregard of the rules.

“It bears stressing that even in the Preliminary Investigation Report submitted by the National Bureau of Investigation, (the two women), in their Judicial Affidavits, did not even mention petitioner’s name.

“More than a decade has passed while enduring the uncertainty of waiting for the final resolution of the administrative case against the petitioner. Yet unsure, We are hopeful of putting an end to this sad chapter of petitioner’s life. We can never turn back time as the sand of time continues to fall. 

“True enough, We cannot start a new beginning for the petitioner however, no matter how cliché it may be, We can start today to make a new tomorrow. 

“Notably, this is the first time that the petitioner was charged with an administrative offense. With no evidence at hand holding him liable for such an offense, his untarnished record must remain that way.”

The CA’s decision quoted Benjamin Franklin – a writer, scientist, inventor, statesman, diplomat, printer, publisher and political philosopher – who said: “It takes many good deeds to build a good reputation, and only one bad one to lose it.” 

It stressed: “Perfectly but unfortunately, this old adage illustrates petitioner’s (Gumboc’s) sad fate.”

Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Lorenza R. Bordios concurred in the CA’s 32-page decision promulgated last Feb. 17.