Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petition For Review
Petition For Review
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
____________
DIVISION
RICARLITO J. ALIVIO
Petitioner,
- versus -
Respondent
x---------------------------------------------------------------------x
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
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
III.
PARTIES
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).
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.
non - payment of
candano
shipping lines
fines of
vessels
and anomalous.
.
F. Vehement protest on respondents
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.
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.
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.
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
Explanation
2.
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.
Ricardo J. Alivio
Affiant