
Police have launched a manhunt and formed a special task force to investigate the fatal shooting of a prominent…

The so-called “Oplan Romanov,” or the alleged covert operation purportedly aimed at eliminating Vice President Sara…

TACLOBAN CITY — Just a week after classes resumed following a fatal mass shooting on campus, officials at San Jose…

The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) has signed up another corporation to expand public access to the…

Water reserves at Pantabangan Dam are rising steadily following heavy rains brought by the southwest monsoon and…
Read next

What's your take?
Google Preferred Sources
Get more Daily Tribune stories in your search results
Add Daily Tribune as a preferred source on Google Search.
Continue reading
An employee of the Philippine Ports Authority has filed charges to the Office of the Ombudsman against two officer-in-charges of the agency for violation of Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ports Police Department acting manager Genardo Mancio filed the complaint before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against acting PPA General Manager Francisquiel O. Mancile and acting division manager Sesenio Sereno III, claiming that the two officials abused their authority.
In the complaint, Mancio said that Mancile issued Special Order 2022 reassigning Sereno from acting Division Manager for Intelligence to acting Department Manager or police superintendent on 21 September.
He added that Mancile was warned earlier by Human Resource Management Department at Legal Services Department officers Mark Palomar and Rigel Caabay that he did not have the authority to reassign Sereno.
Mancio said Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista did not grant additional powers when he named Mancile officer-in-charge of the PPA in an SO issued in 25 July, adding that the DoTr secretary's order expressly directed Mancile to merely perform his role as OIC which, under Civil Service Commission rules, does not include the power to appoint employees.
He also urged the Ombudsman to file an administrative case against Mancile for betrayal of public trust, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service and sought preventive suspension to both Mancile and Sereno.