Title
Supreme Court
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission vs. Pleyto
Case
G.R. No. 176058
Decision Date
Mar 23, 2011
DPWH Undersecretary dismissed for omitting wife's business interests in SALN; SC ruled simple negligence, forfeited 6 months' salary from retirement benefits.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176058)

Facts of the Case

On December 19, 2002, the PAGC received an anonymous complaint regarding Salvador A. Pleyto, accusing him of various misdeeds including extortion and manipulation of DPWH projects. Following this, Pleyto submitted his sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The PAGC discovered that while Pleyto admitted his wife was a businesswoman, he failed to disclose her business interests in these SALNs. Consequently, on April 29, 2003, the PAGC filed charges against Pleyto for violating relevant sections of R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019.

Arguments and Developments

Pleyto contended that there were no business interests to declare, which he indicated by writing "NONE" on his SALN. He also claimed that mistakes in the SALNs were due to the contributions of his wife's bookkeeper. Following an investigation, the PAGC found him guilty of the charges and recommended his dismissal with forfeiture of benefits. Pleyto's request for reconsideration argued against the charges on the basis of procedural grounds under the Review and Compliance Procedure established in R.A. 6713.

On March 11, 2005, the PAGC was directed by the Executive Secretary to reinvestigate the case. The reinvestigation revealed that Pleyto's wife held significant business interests, which were not disclosed in his SALNs. PAGC maintained its position, and the OP ultimately denied Pleyto's motion for reconsideration. Pleyto then sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which sided with him and enjoined the PAGC and OP from enforcing their decisions.

Issues Presented

The case presented two main issues:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding Pleyto's failure to disclose his spouse's business interests in his SALNs as a violation of R.A. 6713.
  2. Whether the Court of Appeals was correct in determining that Pleyto should have been given the opportunity to correct his SALNs under the Review and Compliance Procedure before facing administrative charges.

Court's Rulings

This Supreme Court ruling was informed by prior cases where similar issues arose regarding public officials' SALNs. It reaffirmed that while Pleyto's failure to disclose his spouse's business interests constituted simple negligence, it did not rise to the level of gross misconduct or dishonesty warranting dismissal from service. The Court emphasized that negligence, defined as a lack of due diligence, was present as Pleyto failed to ensure the accuracy of his SALNs. However, the absence of fraudulent intent or deceitful motive in his actions led to a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.