Republic of the Philippines

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

Hearing and Adjudication Board
Old Mia Road Corner Ninoy Aquino Road,
Pasay City, Metro Manila 1300

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF

THE PHILIPPINES,
Complainant,

-versus- Administrative Case No. 1001-24

For: Serious Dishonesty and
Grave Misconduct

JUAN DELA CRUZ,

Dangerous Goods Safety Inspector II,
FOCSID Flight Operation Department,
FSIS
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------x

ANSWER
(To: Formal Charge dated November 5, 2024)

RESPONDENT, Juan Dela Cruz, through the undersigned

counsel, in compliance with the directive of the Deputy Director Gen-
eral for Administration, MGEN. John R. Cruz, AFP (Ret.), and unto
this Honorable Office, most respectfully states---THAT:

1. In the main, answering respondent is formally charged for

allegedly receiving sum of money from a stakeholder as per diem for
alleged unauthorized dangerous goods inspection mission/travel sup-
ported by deposit slip and acknowledgment receipt with his name and
signature in it;

2. Respondent is also being faulted for his issuance of Cer-

tificates of Completion to the twelve (12) participants of Dangerous
Goods CAT 1 Training of Supreme Goods Philippines, Inc., trainees
at its Hatchery Facility, CLSU Complex, Science City of Munoz, Que-
zon Cirty on 18-20 October, 2024;

3. These allegations resulted to the present formal charge

for serious dishonesty and grave misconduct as well as the imposi-
tion of a ninety (90) days preventive suspension against the respon-
dent;
 4. The charges imputed upon the respondent while appar-
ently valid at first glance, are baseless and unjustified. In fact, the al-
legations of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct against herein
respondent has no leg to stand on as shown and explained hereun-
der:

Supreme Goods Philippines,

Inc. is a mere shipper.

5. Supreme Goods Philippines, Inc., is an aquaculture

breeding and distribution company providing genetically improved
tilapia. In so far as CAAP operation and regulatory function is con-
cerned, Supreme is a mere shipper using used fish bins from Aus-
tralian company USED FISH CARTOONS, INC. a foreign entity with
CAAP approved Air Operator Certificate (AOC) to carry dangerous
goods;

6. Supreme as mere shipper of genetically repaired used

fish bins need not secure CAAP accreditation or approval before
dealing with USED FISH CARTOONS, INC., an AOC holder with ap-
proved CAAP application to carry dangerous goods;

7. Strictly speaking, SUPREME GOODS cannot be validly

considered a CAAP stakeholder especially since CAAP at present
neither regulate nor issues CAAP accreditation to shippers with re-
gard to their transaction with AOC holder like USED FISH CAR-
TOONS, INC.;

8. While it is true that CAAP Accreditation for shippers trans-

acting with companies or air operators already with AOCs for ship-
ping dangerous goods by air was required by CAAP Memorandum
Circulars in the past, such requirement was later suspended, revoked
or abandon in later CAAP issuances;

*Photostat copies of CAAP Memorandum Circular Nos. 00-41, 24-6 0

and 24-62 are hereto attached as Annexes “1”, “1’-A” and “1-B”,
respectively.

9. Indeed, CAAP regulates, issues and approves accredita-

tion and Air Operator’s Certificates for entities like USED FISH CAR-
TOONS, INC., and other stakeholders but such accreditation and ap-
proval are no longer required of mere shippers;

No conflict of interest when respon-

dent provided instructional ser-
vices to SUPREME GOODS
trainees.

2
 10. As such, there was no conflict of interest, need for CAAP
approval or duty to remit payments for the instructional services ren-
dered by respondent to SUPREME GOODS because first and fore-
most, it was not a requirement of CAAP but just an added require-
ment imposed by USED FISH CARTOONS, INC., an entity that is al-
ready an AOC holder to shippers using its fish bins;

11. In addition, CAAP generally does not provide such in-

structional services or training to non-AOC holders like SUPREME
GOODS and it also did not have a clear policy in place with regard to
instructional services or training required by AOC holders like USED
FISH CARTOONS, INC., from shippers handling its products or
equipment like the fish bins involved herein;

12. Hence, when SUPREME GOODS (“S.C”) inquired from

respondent’s immediate Supervisor at as to who could possibly pro-
vide the instructional services required by its supplier, she simply re-
ferred S.C. to the respondent;

13. The supervisor, much like the respondent herein, must

have honestly assumed that since CAAP did not have a clear policy
regarding instructional services or training for non-AOC holders, and
also it did not provide such services to similar entities in the past, any
qualified CAAP Dangerous Goods Safety Inspector can handle the
training for S.C.;

14. After negotiating with S.C., respondent agreed and per-

formed the requested instructional services and technical training of
SUPREME GOODS trainees regarding the special handling needed
for the fish bins of USED FISH CARTOONS, INC.;

The ninety (90) days suspension

imposed upon respondents is al-
ready too harsh.

15. The 10 November 2023 Formal Charge also imposed

upon respondent a ninety (90) days preventive suspension. Such im-
position alone is already too harsh since respondent’s action as al-
ready discussed above is not attended by malice, bad faith or any
corrupt motive;

16. Dishonesty has been defined as the concealment or dis-

tortion of truth, which shows lack of integrity or a disposition to de-
fraud, cheat, deceive, or betray, or intent to violate the truth. (Alfornon
v. Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 203657, July 11, 2016);

17. Respondent’s questioned acts and omission did not

cause serious damage and grave prejudice to the Government.
CAAP could not have been prejudiced by the services that respon-

3
dent undertook for USED FISH CARTOONS, INC. since it does not
even provide for such services to shippers in the first place;

18. In addition, the dishonest acts attributed to the respon-

dent in this case were not committed with grave abuse of his author-
ity. It was even his immediate supervisor who referred USED FISH
CARTOONS, INC. to him;

19. Moreover, the alleged dishonest act imputed upon the re-
spondent also did not exhibit moral depravity on his part. He ac-
cepted the task referred to him by his superior without malice and
performed the same in good faith;

20. In fact, respondent’s wrongdoing even if proven to be

true, his preventive suspension for ninety (90) days alone should
already suffice as commensurate penalty for his alleged
inadvertence. Any additional imposition of penalty and/or sanction
would already be excessive and too harsh in the light of surrounding
circumstances of this case;

21. Respondent conducted the questioned instructional

services for USED FISH CARTOONS, INC. without malice, bad faith
and intent to defraud or cause injury to anyone including the
Government.

22. Finally, respondent Juan Dela Cruzl, most respectfully

appeal for leniency and the kind understanding of this Honorable
Office, hoping that should the same disciplining authority find that his
complained acts call for a corresponding sanction, his earlier
preventive suspension of ninety (90) days be duly considered and
declared as commensurate penalty for the wrong committed;

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing attendant facts, reasons

and jurisprudential guideposts, answering respondent most
respectfully prays for the DISMISSAL of this case for lack of merit,
and should the Honorable Office find otherwise, it is further prayed
that the disciplining authority declare his earlier preventive
suspension of ninety (90) days as commensurate penalty for the
wrong done and/or committed;

Pasay City, November 22, 2024.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

JOHN CRUZ
Counsel for the Respondent
4
 Ground Floor, ARTEX Building,
No. 1055 4th Street, Pasay City 1300
Attorneys Roll No.
IBP No. / Pasig City
PTR No. / Pasay City
MCLE No. / Makati City
Contact No.
Email add: [Link]@[Link]

Copy furnished:

Atty. Shawn B. Cardena LBC/Reg. Receipt No. ____

Assigned Prosecuting Officer Dated: November 22, 2024
c/o CAAP Iloilo International Airport
Brgy. Gaub, Cabatuan, Iloilo

EXPLANATION OF SERVICE

For lack of material time and messenger to effect personal

service, this pleading is served upon the above party by LBC Courier
and or registered/ electronic mail.

JOHN CRUZ

VERIFICATION

I, JOHN CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino, after being sworn to in ac-

cordance with law, hereby depose and states:

1. That I am the respondent in the above-entitled case;

2. That I have caused the preparation and filing of the

foregoing Answer, and having read and understood the contents
thereof, I hereby certify that the allegations contained therein are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge and/or based on authentic
records in my possession;

3. That this pleading is not filed to harass, cause

unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation for
any party, and that the factual allegations therein contained have
evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery;

5
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my signature
this 22nd day of November 2024, at Pasay City, Metro Manila.

JOHN CRUZ
Respondent/Affiant
_______ I.D. No. _____

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the date and

place above written. Affiant exhibited to me his competent evidence
of identity duly indicated below her name above.

Doc. No. ____;

Page No. ____;
Book No. ____;
Series of 2024.