Title
Daplas vs. Department of Fice
Case
G.R. No. 221153
Decision Date
Apr 17, 2017
A public official was accused of failing to declare assets in SALNs and unauthorized foreign travels. The Supreme Court found her guilty of simple negligence, not dishonesty, and imposed a fine due to her resignation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 221153)

Ombudsman findings and penalties imposed

In a Joint Decision dated May 8, 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and for violating Section 8(A) of RA 6713. The Ombudsman concluded that petitioner committed perjury under Article 183 of the RPC for failing to declare the Galant and her interest in KEI and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties, without prejudice to criminal prosecution. The Ombudsman did not, however, sustain allegations that the foreign travels demonstrated acquisition of unlawful wealth or that KEI was a subterfuge for ill-gotten wealth.

Court of Appeals disposition

The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated August 27, 2014, dismissed petitioner’s administrative petition and affirmed the Ombudsman’s findings. The CA held that petitioner’s omissions in her SALNs constituted Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and a violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713. The CA rejected petitioner’s claim of good faith and reasoned that resignation did not render the Ombudsman’s administrative ruling moot. The CA denied reconsideration on October 22, 2015.

Issue before the Supreme Court and legal framework applied

The principal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the CA correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s Joint Decision finding petitioner liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of RA 6713, and whether the penalties imposed were proper. Because the decision date of the case falls under the post-1987 period, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution (Section 17, Article XI) and RA 6713’s duties and disclosure requirements governing SALNs. The Court reiterated legal definitions and elements for Dishonesty and (grave) Misconduct and emphasized the necessity of proving intent and the existence of a nexus to official duties for grave misconduct.

Legal standards for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct

The Court recited controlling principles: Dishonesty requires intentional false statements, deception, or fraud—an affirmative disposition to lie or deceive; misconduct denotes intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of law or standards; grave misconduct, distinguished from simple misconduct, requires elements such as corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules and must relate to the performance of official functions. Mere omission in a SALN, without proof of bad faith or an unexplained accumulation of assets materially disproportionate to lawful income, does not automatically satisfy the element of dishonesty.

Analysis of intent and explanation of the alleged undisclosed assets

Applying these standards to the record, the Court found that the element of intent to deceive was not substantially proven. Petitioner admitted, in her counter-affidavit, a business interest in KEI in 1997, undermining a finding of deliberate concealment. The Ombudsman itself found insufficient evidence of unexplained wealth and noted that petitioner’s children had the financial capacity to establish KEI. Regarding the Mitsubishi Galant, the vehicle was registered under petitioner’s late husband and was allegedly purchased with his personal funds; the Ombudsman conceded the husband’s financial capacity to purchase the car. These circumstances negated any conclusive showing of bad faith or fraudulent intent in omitting the assets from SALNs.

Nexus to official duties and failure of the grave misconduct charge

The Court further determined that the omissions did not demonstrate a connection or nexus to the petitioner’s performance of official duties sufficient to sustain a charge of grave misconduct. There was no showing that the omissions hindered the rendition of sound public service or that they evidenced corruption, clear intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of rules. Consequently, the hallmarks required to elevate the omission into grave misconduct were absent.

Conclusion: reclassification of offense and penalty imposed

Given the lack of proof of bad faith, intent to conceal, or unexplained wealth, the Court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms