Case Summary (G.R. No. 199027)
Applicable Law and Key Dates
The case is decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly Section 17, Article XI, which mandates public officers to submit truthful SALNs. Relevant statutes include the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713), Republic Act No. 1379, Revised Penal Code Article 183 on perjury, and Executive Order No. 6 (1986). The October 22, 2015 resolution and August 27, 2014 Court of Appeals decision affirming the Ombudsman’s May 8, 2007 joint decision are at issue.
Facts of the Case
Petitioner was charged with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713 for omitting from her 1997-2003 SALNs: (1) a Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband’s name and allegedly purchased with his personal funds; (2) stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp.; and (3) several real properties in Cavite. Additionally, she faced allegations of traveling abroad multiple times without proper authorization, raising suspicions of undeclared wealth. Petitioner claimed lawful acquisition of assets, non-dependence solely on salary, and government or relative-sponsored travels.
Ombudsman’s Findings
The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of RA 6713 for failure to declare the Galant sedan and KEI stock in her SALNs. It held that such omissions constituted perjury and breach of an official duty to declare assets, imposing dismissal from service with accessory penalties and the possibility of criminal prosecution. However, it dismissed charges regarding unauthorized foreign travel and using KEI as a vehicle for ill-gotten wealth due to insufficient evidence.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals upheld the Ombudsman’s decision, ruling that petitioner’s omissions warranted a finding of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of RA 6713, and affirming her dismissal. It rejected her defense of good faith, emphasizing her knowledge of undeclared assets and failure to justify their exclusion. The CA also held that resignation did not moot the administrative case. Reconsideration by CA was denied.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s ruling finding petitioner liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of RA 6713, warranting dismissal from service.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on SALN Compliance
The Constitution mandates public officials to submit truthful, complete SALNs to promote transparency and prevent unexplained wealth. RA 6713 requires disclosure of the official’s, spouse’s, and dependents' assets and financial interests. Failure to declare assets can raise suspicion of illicit wealth accumulation. However, mere omission does not automatically equate to Dishonesty, which requires a deliberate intent to deceive, conceal material facts, or commit fraud.
Definition and Elements of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct
Dishonesty entails intentional deceit, false statements to secure or maintain a position, and a lack of integrity or probity. Grave Misconduct involves deliberate wrongdoing or flagrant violation of rules related to one’s duties. Without showing clear connection to official functions or malicious intent, the offense may be downgraded to simple misconduct or negligence.
Application to Petitioner’s Case: Absence of Malicious Intent
Although petitioner omitted certain assets from her SALNs, the Court found no substantial evidence of intent to deceive or conceal wealth. Petitioner admitted her ownership interest in KEI and explained the Galant sedan was registered under her husband’s name and allegedly purchased with his funds. The Ombudsman itself noted the petitioner’s children had financial capacity to acquire KEI shares, negating presumption of unexplained wealth.
Distinction Between Dishonesty and Simple Negligence
The Court emphasized that an unintentional error or omission, especially done in good faith, amounts to Simple Negligence, not Dishonesty. Negligence is failure to exercise due diligence required by one’s office. The petitioner’s failure to accurately accomplish the SALNs, without evidence of bad faith or fraudulent intent, constitutes Simple Negligence.
Grave Misconduct Charge Fails for Lack of Nexus
The Court also rejected the charge of Grave Misconduct due to absence of evidence that the
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199027)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioner Concepcion C. Daplas served the government starting as a casual clerk in 1968, eventually becoming Pasay City Treasurer in 1989, and concurrently holding the Officer-in-Charge, Regional Director position of BLGF Region VII in Cebu City.
- Two complaints were filed against petitioner by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service and the Office of the Ombudsman for alleged violations of anti-graft laws and ethical standards concerning her failure to disclose her true assets and financial interests.
- The Office of the Ombudsman, after investigation, found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, imposing dismissal and accessory penalties, with a recommendation for potential criminal prosecution.
- The Court of Appeals upheld the Ombudsman’s decision as supported by substantial evidence, dismissing petitioner’s petition for review.
- The Supreme Court took cognizance of the case via Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse the affirmance by the Court of Appeals.
Facts Establishing the Complaint Against Petitioner
- Petitioner allegedly failed to declare in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) several significant assets, namely:
- A 1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband, valued at around P250,000.
- Stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corporation valued at P1,500,000, with paid-up capital of P800,000.
- Several real properties in Cavite, which had been subject of a previous administrative complaint that was dismissed.
- She also undertook multiple foreign trips without securing proper travel authority, generating suspicion of undisclosed wealth.
- Petitioner maintained that the assets were acquired legally and funded outside her government salary, alleging:
- The car was purchased using her late husband’s personal funds and was not conjugal property.
- Interest in KEI was divested in 1998 but reacquired by family in 2003.
- Her foreign travels were sponsored by government or relatives abroad.
Legal Findings of the Ombudsman
- The Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of:
- Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct based on her perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code by failing to declare the Mitsubishi Galant sedan in SALNs from 1997 to 2003 and business interest in KEI in 1997 SALN.
- Violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713 for failing to disclose required information in SALNs.
- However, the Ombudsman did not find sufficient proof that her foreign travels or KEI were used to conceal ill-gotten wealth.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.