G.R. No. 221153 - Daplas vs. Department of Fice

Petitioner Concepcion C. Daplas began government service as a casual clerk in Kawit, Cavite in 1968.
She held various government posts and was appointed Pasay City Treasurer on May 19, 1989, with a gross monthly salary of ₱28,722.00.
At the time of the complaints, she was concurrently Officer-in-Charge, Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) in Cebu City.

Two complaints were filed against petitioner by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) and the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The complaints charged violations of:

Sections 7 and 8 of Republic Act (RA) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
Section 8(A) of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
Section 2 of RA 1379 (Forfeiture Law)
Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) on perjury
Executive Order No. 6 (Procedures on authority to travel abroad for government officials)

These violations allegedly constitute Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The charges arose from her failure to disclose in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) the true and detailed financial information of both herself and her spouse.

A 1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband's name, valued at ₱250,000.00.
Stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp. valued at ₱1,500,000.00 with a paid-up amount of ₱800,000.00.
Several real properties in Cavite (previously subject of a dismissed administrative complaint).

Petitioner also traveled abroad multiple times without securing travel authority.
Petitioner claimed lawful acquisition of properties, independence from salary for financing acquisitions, that the Galant sedan was purchased by her late husband using his personal funds (not conjugal property), divestment of KEI shares in 1998, and travel sponsorship by government or relatives.

The Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713 in a Joint Decision dated May 8, 2007.
The penalty imposed was dismissal from service and accessory penalties without prejudice to criminal prosecution.
The Ombudsman ruled that petitioner committed perjury by failing to declare the Mitsubishi Galant and business interest in KEI in her SALNs from 1997 to 2003.
Charges related to multiple foreign travels as indicia of unlawful wealth and KEI being a subterfuge for ill-gotten wealth were found unsubstantiated.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the Ombudsman in May 2011.
She elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 122851.
In its Decision dated August 27, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition, upholding the findings and penalty of the Ombudsman.
The CA found petitiоner’s failure to declare assets establishes dishonesty, grave misconduct, and violation of RA 6713.
The CA disregarded petitioner’s claim of good faith and held that her resignation did not moot the case.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA through a Resolution dated October 22, 2015.

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision finding petitioner liable for:

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service and accessory penalties were proper.