Case Digest (G.R. No. 221153)
Facts:
Concepcion C. Daplas, City Treasurer, Pasay City, G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017, First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Daplas was the Pasay City Treasurer (appointed May 19, 1989) and concurrently served as Officer‑in‑Charge, Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) in Cebu City.Two separate administrative complaints were filed against petitioner by the Department of Finance‑Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF‑RIPS) and the Field Investigation Office of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) alleging violations of Sections 7 and 8 of RA 3019, Section 8(A) of RA 6713, Section 2 of RA 1379, Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code, and EO No. 6 (1986). The complaints charged petitioner with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service arising from alleged nondisclosure in her SALNs for 1997–2003 of: (a) a 1993 Mitsubishi Galant registered in her late husband’s name; (b) a stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp.; and (c) certain Cavite real properties; respondents also pointed to multiple foreign trips allegedly taken without travel authority.
Petitioner denied bad faith, claiming lawful acquisition of assets, that the Galant was purchased with her husband’s funds, that she had divested her KEI interest in 1998 (later reacquired by family in 2003), and that some travels were sponsored. In a Joint Decision dated May 8, 2007 the Ombudsman found her guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713, imposed dismissal and accessory penalties, and noted perjury under Article 183 for nondisclosure; a motion for reconsideration was denied on May 30, 2011.
Petitioner elevated the case by petition for review to the Court of Appeals (CA) as CA‑G.R. SP No. 122851. In a Decision dated August 27, 2014 the CA dismissed her petition and upheld the Ombudsman’s findings, rejecting her good‑faith defense and ruling t...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals correctly affirm the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713 for omissions in her SALNs for 1997–2003?
- If not, what is the proper characterization of petitioner’s conduct and the appropriate penalty, in light of her resignation and the ap...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)