G.R. No. 192723 - De Castro vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Leovigildo A. De Castro began working at the Bureau of Customs on December 4, 1973, initially as a storekeeper at what is now Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Over the years, he was promoted and held several positions including:

His wife, Marina Rios, also had a government career; having started as a clerk at the Philippine Atomic Energy Commission in July 1969 and retiring as a training officer in 1988.

Based on Certificates of Employment and Compensation, the combined declared income of Leovigildo and Marina from 1974 to 2004 was P10,841,412.28.
Leovigildo’s Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for selected years (1994–2003) showed only a limited list of properties and a vehicle, omitting several significant assets.
Undeclared or “Disputed Assets” allegedly included:

Real properties such as residential houses and lots in Parañaque, Taal (Batangas) and Muntinlupa City.
Investments in companies like Lemar Export and Import Corporation, De Castro Oral Implant Center, Lemar General Trading, Ceraco Corporation, and Le Mar Dental Clinic.
Motor vehicles (e.g., a car acquired in 2002 and a Toyota Land Cruiser).

Assets allegedly registered in the names of his children, despite their obvious lack of financial capacity at the time of acquisition.
Additionally, evidence regarding foreign trips was presented; records from the Bureau of Immigration indicated 70 outbound flights between 1993 and 2004, with an assigned cost that highlighted an alleged disproportionate level of spending relative to their declared income.

In 2003, the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office (FIO) conducted motu proprio lifestyle checks on government officials, including Leovigildo.
The FIO’s investigation revealed discrepancies between the declared income (P10,841,412.28) and the computed asset value (P30,829,603.48) of Leovigildo and his wife, notably due to substantial undeclared assets and estimated foreign travel expenses.
On October 5, 2005, the FIO filed a complaint charging Leovigildo with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
A preliminary investigation led to preventive suspension by the Ombudsman on March 24, 2006.
On March 26, 2007, the Ombudsman issued a Decision finding Leovigildo guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, imposing penalties of dismissal, cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.
Leovigildo filed a Motion for Reconsideration in 2007, which was denied; subsequent appeals followed before the Court of Appeals (CA) in 2007 and 2009.

The Ombudsman lacked authority to directly review his SALNs, asserting that such authority rested with the Commissioner of Customs pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. 6713.
The discrepancies in his SALNs were the result of honest mistakes easily rectified in subsequent filings.
The foreign trips and the acquisition of high-value assets by his children could be legitimately explained by their professional qualifications and alternate sources of funds.

On April 29, 2009, the CA rendered a decision dismissing his appeal, affirming the Ombudsman’s findings and penalties.
Leovigildo then filed a Motion for Reconsideration and subsequently a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s and Ombudsman’s findings and penal imposition.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the administrative liability of petitioner Leovigildo A. De Castro for both Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.

Specifically, the issue concerned the proper classification of his acts, given that the omissions in his SALNs and the acquisition of assets disproportionate to his declared income were argued to be honest mistakes rather than criminal intentional acts.
Whether the Ombudsman overstepped or properly exercised its power to review SALNs, particularly in light of Section 10 of R.A. 6713, which assigns certain review functions to the heads of executive departments.
The sufficiency and reliability of the evidence adduced—especially the basis for the foreign travel expenses—and whether such evidence sufficiently proved unexplained wealth.