THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 214081, April 10, 2019
P/INSP. II GILBERT C. SAN DIEGO, PETITIONER, v. FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE* (UNDER THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR MILITARY AND OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS), REPRESENTED BY AGIO DON. A ESQUIVEL, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated October 31, 2013 and its Resolution2 dated August 28, 2014 in CA-G.R. SP No. 125147. The CA denied the petition for review of the Decision dated June 30, 2011 and the Order dated January 2, 2012 of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Officers (OMB-MOLEO) in OMB-P-A-09-0920-J. The OMB-MOLEO found petitioner P/Insp. II Gilbert C. San Diego guilty of sixteen (16) counts of Grave Misconduct and six (6) counts of Serious Dishonesty, and imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from the service, including the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service.
The factual antecedents are as follows:
On June 2, 2008, a formal request was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman for a lifestyle check upon Gilbert C. San Diego, Special Investigator of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), who was allegedly living a lifestyle not commensurate to his salary.
San Diego has supposedly exhibited extravagant spending by giving out large parties and shopping without limits in high-end establishments, and frequently traveled abroad with the use of several passports, bearing different middle names, i.e., "Carlos" and "Careon." He also owns two (2) vehicles, i.e., a 2004-2005 Toyota Vios Sedan and a Nissan Safari Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) worth P2,000,000.00, as well as shares of stocks of A. Francisco Realty and Development Corporation worth P5,000,000.00.
On July 20, 2009, the OMB-MOLEO rendered a Fact-Finding Report,3 recommending that criminal and administrative charges be filed against San Diego, and referring the case to the Criminal Investigation, Prosecution and Administrative Adjudication Bureau (CIPAAB), for the conduct of preliminary investigation and administrative investigation.
On September 29, 2009, the Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) of OMB-MOLEO filed separate Affidavit-Complaints4 dated September 29, 2009, administratively charging San Diego with several counts of Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Gross Neglect of Duty, thus:
The FFIB of OMB-MOLEO also filed the corresponding Affidavit-Complaints dated September 29, 2009, criminally charging San Diego with six (6) counts of Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379 (Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found To Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing the Proceedings Therefor).1. One (1) count for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for falsely declaring in his 2006 Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth [SALN] that he owns a Nissan Patrol SUV worth P2.4 million when in fact the registered owner thereof is A. Francisco Realty and Development Corporation;5
2. One (1) count for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for intentional failure to declare in his 2006 SALN his wife, the business interest and financial connection of his wife and his own business interest and financial connection in A. Francisco Realty and Development Corporation in the amount of P5 million pesos worth of stocks;6
3. One (1) count for Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty when he intentionally failed to declare a condominium unit he declared in 2005 and his licensed firearms in his 2007 SALN;7
4. One (1) count for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for falsely declaring in the Application for Marriage License dated April 25, 2005 that Adalia B. Francisco is Adela Gloria B. Francisco and that her civil status is "Widow," the truth of the matter being that both San Diego and Adalia B. Francisco knew that the latter's name is not Adalia Gloria B. Francisco and that her civil status is not a widow;8
5. One (1) count for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for not declaring in his 2005 SALN his wife, the business interest and financial connection of his wife and his own business interest and financial connection in A. Francisco Realty and Development Corporation in the amount of P5 million pesos worth of stocks;9
6. Two (2) counts for Grave Misconduct and Serious Dishonesty for misrepresenting and falsely declaring that his middle name is Careon in his passport application, hence, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) issued to him Passport QQ0270116 dated April 9,2005 and TT0400798 dated July 7, 2006, when, in fact, he knew fully well that his middle name is Carlos and not Careon;10
7. Ten (10) counts for Gross Neglect of Duty for not filing the requisite applications for leave relative to his foreign travels, and ten (10) counts for Serious Dishonesty for his failure to comply with Memorandum Circular No. 304 dated November 19, 1969, as amended by Executive Order No. 6 dated March 12, 1986, for not securing the necessary Authority to Travel in his foreign trips while in government service, considering that out of the 14 trips abroad, he was given only 5 travel authorities, thus:11
Date Destination Approved Travel Authority September 1-5, 2003 (USA)1. March 19-21, 2004 Bangkok2. July 15-18, 2004 Singapore October 12 - November 18, 2004 (USA)3. August 6-17, 2005 Bangkok4. August 26-29, 2005 Hongkong5. September 1, 2005 Hongkong6. October 26-29, 2005 Tokyo7. February 8-15, 2006 Dubai8. March 3-6, 2006 Hong Kong9. May 11-13, 2007 Hongkong10. June 26-July 15, 2007 Dubai June 27-July 15, 2007 (England and United Kingdom)11. October 6-23, 2007 Doha12. January 10-21, 2008 Not reflected January 16 - 31, 2008 (Australia) - Extension13. February 29-March 3, 2008 Not reflected February 29 - March 4, 2008 (Vietnam)14. May 10-12, 2008 Not reflected
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent P/INSP. II GILBERT C. SAN DIEGO is hereby found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT on SIXTEEN (16) COUNTS and SERIOUS DISHONESTY on SIX (6) COUNTS for which the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service is hereby imposed, including the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service, pursuant to Paragraph A(3), Sections 52 and 58(a), Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 991936 otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.On January 2, 2012, the OMB-MOLEO found no convincing reason to disturb the findings of the investigating prosecutor, and ruled that the other grounds raised in San Diego's motion for reconsideration had been passed upon in its June 30, 2011 Decision.
ACCORDINGLY, the Secretary, DILG and the Director General of the Philippine National Police are hereby directed to implement the subject Decision in accordance with law, with the request to promptly submit to this Office a Compliance Report thereof, indicating the subject OMB Case Number.
Compliance is respectfully enjoined consistent with Section 15(3) of R.A. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
SO ORDERED.14
The variance in the number and nature of charges filed against San Diego and in the offenses for which he was found guilty neither violates his right to due process nor warrants his exoneration from the said offenses.San Diego contends that he cannot be found guilty of misconduct in relation to the misrepresentations in his SALNs for 2005, 2006 and 2007, because the alleged misrepresentations do not relate to his official function or performance as a police investigator. He asserts that to be considered misconduct under the purview of the law, such transgression must affect the performance of his duties as an officer, and not only his character as a private individual. He points out that although required by law, the accomplishment of SALNs by every government employee does not affect, nor has any relation to, the specific and divergent functions of each government employee in their respective offices.
The Supreme Court already ruled in Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission that the designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling and one may be found guilty of another offense, where the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt:
x x x x
The ruling in the Dadubo case was reiterated in the recent case of PAGCOR v. Marquez, where the Supreme Court stressed that the failure to designate the offense specifically and with precision is of no moment in an administrative case. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense: The law simply requires that the civil servant is informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him in a clear and concise manner to give the person a chance to answer the allegations intelligently.
In this case, the records reveal that San Diego was more than informed of the charges against him and he was given all the opportunities to controvert each and every accusation through the filing of his consolidated counter-affidavit. He was also given the chance to be heard on his motion for reconsideration; hence, he cannot rightfully assert violation of his right to due process.
It also bears stressing that the nature and cause of accusations against San Diego were presented in a clear and concise manner in the seven (7) affidavit-complaints filed against him. It gave us a clear picture of how San Diego violated R.A. No. 6713 and Memorandum Circular No. 304. These allegations should be the controlling factors in determining his liabilities and not the designation given by the FFIB to each offense.16
It cannot be denied that dishonesty is considered a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. And the rule is that dishonesty, in order to warrant dismissal, need not be committed in the course of the performance of duty by the person charged. The rationale for the rule is that if a government officer or employee is dishonest or is guilty of oppression or grave misconduct, even if said defects of character are not connected with his office, they affect his right to continue in office. The Government cannot tolerate in its service a dishonest official, even if he performs his duties correctly and well, because by reason of his government position, he is given more and ample opportunity to commit acts of dishonesty against his fellow men, even against offices and entities of the government other than the office where he is employed; and by reason of his office, he enjoys and possesses a certain influence and power which renders the victims of his grave misconduct, oppression and dishonesty less disposed and prepared to resist and to counteract his evil acts and actuations. The private life of an employee cannot be segregated from his public life. Dishonesty inevitably reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the discipline and morale of the service.18Contrary to San Diego's argument, the Court holds that if a government officer or employee is guilty of Dishonesty or Grave Misconduct, even if such defect of character was not connected with his office, it affects his right to continue in office. Be it stressed that when an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
a) | He failed to declare his and his wife's interest in A. Francisco Realty because he believed that it was no longer necessary since he has only a nominal interest in the corporation, and that he thought that the SALN is limited only to his personal business interest. |
b) | He included, in good faith, in his 2006 SALN a Nissan Patrol SUV due to the fact that he was of the mistaken impression that he should declare it because he uses it for work and personal purposes; |
c) | He did not disclose in his 2007 SALN a condominium unit in Libis, Quezon City, because the property has not yet been fully paid, and he cannot be considered to possess ownership thereof. |
d) | He did not fail to disclose certain firearms in his 2007 SALN because the Pistol Flag Caliber .38 has already been sold to his brother in 1999, and he was of the wrong impression that the Machine Pistol Uzi need not be included since it was similar with the items indicated in the SALN like bonds, mutual funds, etc. |
Dishonesty, as juridically understood, implies the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty or probity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt on one's ability to perform duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee. The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined in the Constitution to promote transparency in the civil service and serves as a deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful means. By mandate of law, every government official or employee must make a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to avoid any issue regarding questionable accumulation of wealth. The importance of requiring the submission of a complete, truthful, and sworn SALN as a measure to defeat corruption in the bureaucracy cannot be gainsaid. Full disclosure of wealth in the SALN is necessary to particularly minimize, if not altogether eradicate, the opportunities for official corruption, and maintain a standard of honesty in the public service. Through the SALN, the public can monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it serves as a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. The failure to file a truthful SALN reasonably puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and normally amounts to dishonesty.With respect to the non-disclosure of his ownership of common shares and his being a Vice-President in A. Francisco Realty Corp., San Diego explained in his Consolidated Counter-Affidavit22 that he had very little participation and was merely a nominal stockholder of the corporation which was owned and controlled by his wife, Atty. Adalia Francisco, who was in a better position to make all business decisions. After a careful perusal of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Adalia Bias Francisco23 and the Agreement24 dated December 20, 2013 attached to his Supplemental Petition for Review25 dated May 11, 2015, the Court is convinced that the provenance of the means to acquire the 50,000 common shares worth P5,000,000.00 under his name in the eponymous corporation is no less than San Diego's wife, Atty. Francisco, who, at the time of her demise, left wealth so substantial in terms of prime real estate and valuable personal properties, that would make the value of his common shares look like a paltry sum. Malicious intent to conceal the truth on the part of San Diego is also absent because he disclosed in his 2007 SALN that Atty. Francisco is his wife and is the President of A. Francisco Realty. With the source of his undisclosed wealth having been traced to the generosity of his wife, the Court rules that San Diego cannot be held liable for Serious Dishonesty or Grave Misconduct, but only for Simple Negligence due to his failure to disclose his financial interest in the corporation of his wife.
Section, 7. Finality and execution of decision. - Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.Also, Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 01, Series of 2006, of the OMB states:
An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer.
Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07, otherwise known as, the "Ombudsman Rules of Procedure" provides that: "A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course."Since San Diego was dismissed from service by the OMB-MOLEO, and his petition for review under Rule 43 was later denied by the CA, the filing of his petition for review on certiorari before the Court did not stay the immediate implementation of the Ombudsman's order of dismissal. Because a decision of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course under the afore-quoted Section 7, and inasmuch as he also prays for reinstatement and restoration of his rights and benefits under the law, it is safe to state that San Diego has been out of government service from the time the Ombudsman ordered his dismissal until the pendency of his appeal. Thus, the Court rules that San Diego should be immediately reinstated to his original position without loss of seniority rights, and be, henceforth, restored of all his rights and benefits under the law without payment of back salaries. Be it stressed that San Diego did not prevail in his appeal, and the Court hardly exonerated him, but only corrected the designation of the administrative offenses he committed, and reduced the corresponding penalties. This is in light of his ready admission that he travelled abroad without prior approval because of the delay in securing the same, and in view of the Deed of Extra-judicial Settlement of the Estate of Adalia Bias Francisco49 and the Agreement50 dated December 20, 2013 submitted for the first time before the Court, which traced the origin of his undeclared wealth to that of his wife.
In order that the foregoing rule may be strictly observed, all concerned are hereby enjoined to implement all Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions in administrative disciplinary cases, immediately upon receipt thereof by their respective offices.
The filing of a motion for reconsideration or a petition for review before the Office of the Ombudsman does not operate to stay the immediate implementation of the foregoing Ombudsman decisions, orders or resolutions.
1. | Four (4) counts of Simple Negligence for violation of the law on the filing of Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) with regard to the non-disclosure of his financial interest in A. Francisco Realty, Corp., of his ownership of a Pistol Flag .38 caliber and a Machine Pistol Uzi caliber 9mm, and of his conjugal ownership of a condominium unit in Libis, Quezon City, and for the misdeclaration in his SALN of the Nissan Patrol SUV with Plate No. GNA-88 registered under the name of said Corporation; and |
2. | Eleven (11) counts of Simple Misconduct for failure to secure the prior approval to travel abroad, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 304, series of 1969. |
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Fact-Finding and Investigating Bureau (FFIB) in some parts of the rollo.
** Designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; rollo, pp. 39-52.
2Id. at 54-55.
3 Penned by Associate Graft Investigation Officer III, with approval of Fact-Finding and Investigation Bureau Officer-in-Charge Director Francisco P. Felizmenio and Deputy Ombudsman for MOLEO Emilio A. Gonzalez III.
4 Signed by Associate Graft Investigation Officer III Don A. Esquivel.
5 CA rollo, p. 356.
6Id. at 361-362.
7Id. at 371-372.
8Id. at 379-381.
9Id. at 389-391.
10Id. at 399-400.
11Id. at 410-412 and 422-423.
12Rollo, pp. 56-67.
13 Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer Myra T. Zipagan, with the concurrence of Director Dennis L. Garcia, and with approval of Assistant Ombudsman Eulogio S. Cecilio and Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando S. Casimiro; CA rollo, pp. 112-120.
14Id. at 120.
15Rollo, p. 21.
16Id. at 259-260. (Citations omitted).
17 414 Phil. 590 (2001).
18Id. at 600-601. (Emphasis added).
19 G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017, 823 SCRA 44.
20Id. at 54-55.
21 749 Phil. 917, 929-930 (2014).
22Rollo, pp. 56-67, 164-175.
23Id. at 101-108.
24Id. at 111-112.
25Id. at 87-94.
26Daplas v. Department of Finance, supra note 19, at 55.
27 CA rollo, p. 375.
28 563 Phil. 842, 909 (2007).
29Rollo,p. 71.
30 683 Phil. 1, 6 (2012).
31 Civil Service Resolution No. 06-0538 dated April 4, 2006, Sec. 3.
32 CA rollo, pp. 402-403, 408.
33Id. at 400.
34Id. at 462.
35 Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3.
36Rollo, pp. 181, 190.
37 CA rollo, pp. 422-424.
38 508 Phil. 569, 579 (2005); Santos v. Rasalan, 544 Phil. 35, 43 (2007).
39 CA rollo, pp. 429-433.
40 Signed on November 19, 1969, Entitled: Reminding All Concerned of the Need For Prior Approval by the Office of the President of Trips Abroad of Government Personnel.
41 See CA rollo, pp. 422-423:
Date Destination Approved Travel Authority September 1 - 5, 2003 (USA)1. March 19-21, 2004 Bangkok None2. July 15-18, 2004 Singapore None October 12 - November 18, 2004 (USA)3. August 6-17, 2005 Bangkok None4. August 26-29, 2005 Hongkong None5. September 1, 2005 Hongkong None6. October 26-29, 2005 Tokyo None7. February 8-15, 2006 Dubai None8. March 3-6, 2006 Hong Kong None9. May 11-13, 2007 Hongkong None10. June26-July 15, 2007 Dubai June 27- July 15, 2007 (England and United Kingdom)11. October 6-23, 2007 Doha None12. January 10-21, 2008 Not reflected January 16 - 31, 2008 (Australia) - Extension13. February 29-March 3, 2008 Not reflected February 29 - March 4, 2008 (Vietnam)14. May 10-12, 2008 Not reflected None
42 Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
43Supra note 19.
44Daplas v. Department of Finance, id.
45 Section 8, R.A. No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Section 7, R.A. No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
46 CA rollo, pp. 356-357, 361-362 and 371-372.
47Id. at 525-530.
48Cobarde-Gamallo v. Escandor, G.R. No. 184464, June 21, 2017.
49Rollo, pp. 101-108.
50Id. at 111-112.
LEONEN, J.:
By law, public officers should not be held liable for inaccuracies in their statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth without first being given an opportunity to correct the defects.
The laws requiring public officers to submit declarations of their assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests, are: (1) Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; and (2) Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act mandates every public officer to file a statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth with the office of his or her Department Head, Office of the President, or Office of the Secretary of the House of Representatives or Senate, wherever applicable. Violating this provision is sufficient to remove or dismiss a public officer, who shall be punished with a fine and/or imprisonment. However, the law was passed decades before the enactment of Republic Act No. 6713, which particularly governs the conduct and ethical standards of public officials and employees.
The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees specifies that a review and compliance procedure must be established to determine the existence of certain defects in a public officer's statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth. Under the procedure, if it is found that the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth was: (1) not tiled on time; (2) incomplete; or (3) not in proper form, the reporting individual must be informed of this defect and directed to take corrective action.1
The law places the responsibility of establishing these procedures on designated committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as heads of offices, subject to the approval of the Department of Justice Secretary or the Supreme Court Chief Justice, for the executive branch and the judiciary, respectively.2 The law further provides:
SECTION 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. — . . .Thus, the law clearly recognizes that a defect in the statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth may have occurred despite the reporting individual's good faith, and despite his or her lack of intent to conceal wealth. Moreover, once an opinion is rendered to a reporting individual, if he or she subsequently acts upon the opinion in good faith, he or she may not be sanctioned under Republic Act No. 6713.
. . . .
(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.
The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.3
Although it is the duty of every public official/employee to properly accomplish his/her SALN, it is not too much to ask for the head of the appropriate department/office to have called his attention should there be any incorrectness in his SALN. The DOF, which has supervision over the BIR, could have directed Navarro to correct his SALN. This is in consonance with the above-quoted Review and Compliance Procedure under R.A. No. 6713, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), providing for the procedure for review of statements to determine whether they have been properly accomplished. To reiterate, it is provided in the IRR that in the event authorities determine that a SALN is not properly filed, they should inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.This was reiterated in Republic v. Sereno.15 There, however, it was stressed that authorized officials could only provide for limited corrective action:
In this case, however, Navarro was not given the chance to rectify the nebulous entries in his SALNs. Instead, the DOF, through its RIPS, filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman on the ground that his SALN was "generalized." Regardless, Navarro was able to show and explain the details of his SALN when he submitted his counter-affidavit with the necessary documents, to which the DOF-RIPS and the Ombudsman and the CA coldly closed their eyes.
As there was only a failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee because of either carelessness or indifference, Navarro should have been informed so he could have made the necessary explanation or correction. There is nothing wrong with a generalized SALN if the entries therein can be satisfactorily explained and verified.
. . . .
The Court is mindful of the duty of public officials and employees to disclose their assets, liabilities and net worth accurately and truthfully. In keeping up with the constantly changing and fervent society and for the purpose of eliminating corruption in the government, the new SALN is stricter, especially with regard to the details of real properties, to address the pressing issue of transparency among those in the government service. Although due regard is given to those charged with the duty of filtering malicious elements in the government service, it must still be stressed that such duty must be exercised with great caution as grave consequences result therefrom. Thus, some leeway should be accorded the public officials. They must be given the opportunity to explain any prima facie appearance of discrepancy. To repeat, where his explanation is adequate, convincing and verifiable, his assets cannot be considered unexplained wealth or illegally obtained.14 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
The Rules implementing R.A. No. 6713 thus authorize only certain officials of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Departments, and the Constitutional Commissions and Constitutional offices to establish compliance procedures for the review of statements in the SALN to determine whether said statements have been properly accomplished. The said officials are also authorized to render opinions interpreting the provisions on the review and compliance procedures and to determine whether or not a SALN is properly filed. If the SALN was not properly filed, the authorized officials are required to inform the reporting individual and direct him/her to take the necessary corrective action. The records do not show that at the time respondent assumed her post as a professor in U.P., or at any time thereafter until her resignation, that concerned authorized official/s of the Office of the President or the Ombudsman had established compliance procedures for the review of SALNs filed by officials and employees of State Colleges and Universities, like U.P.In Atty. Navarro, this Court emphasized that under Republic Act No. 6713, respondent Navarro should have been given the opportunity to rectify unclear entries in his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth:
The ministerial duty of the head of office to issue compliance order came about only on April 16, 2006 when the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Memorandum Circular No. 10, s. 2006 amending Rule VIII. This was pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 06-0231 dated February 1, 2006 wherein the CSC adopted the revised rules on review and compliance procedure. . . .
At any rate, Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman clarifies on the limited corrective action which the head of office can perform as regards the review of SALNs:. . . .
Lest it be misunderstood, the corrective action to be allowed should only refer to typographical or mathematical rectifications and explanation of disclosed entries. It does not pertain to hidden, undisclosed or undeclared acquired assets which the official concerned intentionally concealed by one way or another like, for instance, the use of dummies. There is actually no hard and fast rule. If income has been actually reported to the BIR in one's ITR, such feet can be considered a sign of good faith.
. . . .
The Court is mindful of the duty of public officials and employees to disclose their assets, liabilities and net worth accurately and truthfully. In keeping up with the constantly changing and fervent society and for the purpose of eliminating corruption in the government, the new SALN is stricter, especially with regard to the details of real properties, to address the pressing issue of transparency among those in the government service. Although due regard is given to those charged with the duty of filtering malicious elements in the government service, it must still be stressed that such duty must be exercised with great caution as grave consequences result therefrom. Thus, some leeway should be accorded the public officials. They must be given the opportunity to explain any prima facie appearance of discrepancy. To repeat, where his explanation is adequate, convincing and verifiable, his assets cannot be considered unexplained wealth or illegally obtained.
5. Respondent's inclusion in the matrix of candidates with complete requirements and in the shortlist nominated by the JBC confirms or ratifies her compliance with the SALN requirement.16 (Emphasis in the original)
Given the opportunity, Navarro could have disclosed the acquisition costs and cost of the improvements in a more detailed way. His failure to amend his presentation, without his attention on the matter being called, cannot be considered as indicative of an untruthful declaration of his assets. Unless there is a concrete proof that the values or acquisition costs stated in Navarro's SALNs were not what they were supposed to be, then a conclusion that the same were untruthful cannot be reached.The purpose of requiring the submission statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth is to defeat corruption, not to subject public officials to annoying harassment due to inaccuracies, which they may have committed in good faith. Providing an opportunity to correct a defect before being sanctioned is more aligned with the purpose and text of the law.
Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct
Dishonesty is committed when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, betray or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; and the lack of fairness and straightforwardness.
Misconduct, on the other hand, is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.
From the given definitions above, the element of intent to commit a wrong exists in both administrative offenses of dishonesty and grave misconduct which, under the law, merit the penalty of dismissal from service. Thus, without any malice or wrongful intent, administrative liability cannot attach.
Here, there was no substantial evidence showing any malice or intent to deceive on the part of Navarro in accomplishing the questioned SALNs. Navarro would not have endeavoured to produce voluminous documents to prove that he truthfully declared his properties, albeit lumped together, if his intention was to conceal them. The documents he submitted showed the veracity of the acquisitions he made and their respective costs as reflected in his SALNs. The physical impression of the DOF-RIPS of what and how the properties actually looked, without anything more concrete than mere conjectures that the said properties commanded a higher value or that the amounts did not match the kind of buildings constructed thereon, would not make Navarro's SALNs any less truthful.
The Court cannot help but observe that the charges filed by the DOF-RIPS against Navarro, that his SALNs bore misdeclarations, over-declarations and nondeclarations, are based on mere speculations and conjectures. Without concrete corroborating evidence to substantiate the charges, the Court cannot simply rely on such surmises as they are "not equivalent to proof; they have little, if any, probative value and, surely, cannot be the basis of a sound judgment." The Court's decision must be based upon competent proof "for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof."
The Court has once emphasized that a mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to dishonesty. Only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income or other sources of income of the public officer/employee and he fails to properly account or explain his other sources of income, does he become susceptible to dishonesty. Although there appeared to have a prima facie evidence giving rise to the presumption of accumulation of wealth disproportionate to his income, Navarro was able to overcome such presumption by coming out with documentary evidence to prove his financial capacity to make the subject acquisitions and to prove that the amounts he stated in his SALNs were true. It should be understood that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the acquisition of unexplained wealth. Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly accounted for, then it is "explained wealth" which the law does not penalize.
Considering that Navarro sufficiently explained his acquisitions as well as his other lawful sources of income to show his and his wife's financial capacity to acquire the subject real properties, he cannot be deemed to have committed dishonesty. He cannot be adjudged guilty of grave misconduct either as his alleged "lumping" of real properties in his SALN did not affect the discharge of his duties as a revenue officer.
The question now is: did he commit simple negligence for improperly accomplishing his SALNs?
A review of the case and the applicable rules and jurisprudence guides the Court to a negative finding.
Negligence is the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. In the case of public officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and there is gross negligence when the breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.
As previously discussed, however, evident bad faith was wanting on the part of Navarro. Although it is the duty of every public official/employee to properly accomplish his/her SALN, it is not too much to ask for the head of the appropriate department/office to have called his attention should there be any incorrectness in his SALN. The DOF, which has supervision over the BIR, could have directed Navarro to correct his SALN. This is in consonance with the above-quoted Review and Compliance Procedure under R.A. No. 6713, as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), providing for the procedure for review of statements to determine whether they have been properly accomplished. To reiterate, it is provided in the IRR that in the event authorities determine that a SALN is not properly filed, they should inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.
In this case, however, Navarro was not given the chance to rectify the nebulous entries in his SALNs. Instead, the DOF, through its RIPS, filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman on the ground that his SALN was "generalized." Regardless, Navarro was able to show and explain the details of his SALN when he submitted his counter-affidavit with the necessary documents, to which the DOF-RIPS and the Ombudsman and the CA coldly closed their eyes.
As there was only a failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee because of either carelessness or indifference, Navarro should have been informed so he could have made the necessary explanation or correction. There is nothing wrong with a generalized SALN if the entries therein can be satisfactorily explained and verified.
Lest it be misunderstood, the corrective action to be allowed should only refer to typographical or mathematical rectifications and explanation of disclosed entries. It does not pertain to hidden, undisclosed or undeclared acquired assets which the official concerned intentionally concealed by one way or another like, for instance, the use of dummies. There is actually no hard and fast rule. If income has been actually reported to the BIR in one's 1TR, such fact can be considered a sign of good faith.17 (Emphasis in the original)
SECTION 8. Statements and Disclosure. — . . .Under this provision, it is difficult to see how failure to disclose ownership of a firearm is a clear breach of duty, considering that information on firearms is not expressly required. While firearms are classified as "personal property," to require a statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth to contain a comprehensive list of all of one's personal properties without discrimination—such that omission of any item owned constitutes simple negligence—would be oppressive and unreasonable.
. . . .
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; (b) personal property and acquisition cost; (c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; (d) liabilities, and; (e) all business interests and financial connections.
Notably, the constitution in effect when the memorandum circular was issued contained no express protection of the right to travel. On the other hand, Article III, Section 6 of the current Constitution, states:MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 304
REMINDING ALL CONCERNED OF THE NEED FOR PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF TRIPS ABROAD OF GOVERNMENT PERSONNEL.
It has been observed that certain officials and employees in some government offices and agencies have undertaken trips abroad without the prior authority of this Office as required under existing regulations.
In view of the pressing need to pursue more vigorously the Administration's efforts at conserving foreign exchange and considering the imperativeness of redoubling efforts in the public service towards national progress, all concerned particularly by the heads of departments and chiefs of bureaus and offices, including local subdivisions and government-owned or controlled corporations, are hereby reminded of the need of obtaining the prior permission of the Office of the President for all trips aboard of personnel in their jurisdictions.
This requirement shall henceforth apply even to those who intended to travel abroad while on leave of absence, inasmuch as vacation leave must be contingent upon the exigencies of the service.
In line with such constitutional guarantee, this Court has protected the right to travel more closely. In Genuino v. De Lima,20 this Court, invoking Article III, Section 6, reiterated that the 1987 Constitution limits situations where the State may impinge on the right to travel. When the State so impinges, it must be in accord with laws or the Rules of Court:ARTICLE III
Bill of Rights
. . . .
SECTION 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. (Emphasis in the original)
Clearly, under the provision, there are only three considerations that may permit a restriction on the right to travel: national security, public safety or public health. As a further requirement, there must be an explicit provision of statutory law or the Rules of Court providing for the impairment. The requirement for a legislative enactment was purposely added to prevent inordinate restraints on the person's right to travel by administrative officials who may be tempted to wield authority under the guise of national security, public safety or public health. This is in keeping with the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men and also with the canon that provisions of law limiting the enjoyment of liberty should be construed against the government and in favor of the individual.21Assuming that petitioner indeed obtained permission from and informed his immediate superiors regarding his travel—and without any legislative enactment, or any consideration of national security, public safety, or public health, by which petitioner's right to travel may have been curtailed—then he should not be sanctioned for his failure to obtain an official travel authority prior to traveling abroad.
Endnotes:
1 Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 10(a).
2 Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989), sees. 10(a) and (c).
3 Rep. Act No. 6713 (1989), sec. 10(b).
4 G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017, 823 SCRA 44 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
5 Id. at 55-56.
6 Id. at 56.
7 674 Phil. 286 (2011) [Per J. Brion, En Banc].
8 563 Phil. 842 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
9 793 Phil. 453 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
10 705 Phil. 524 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
11 563 Phil. 842 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
12 705 Phil. 524 (2013) [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
13 793 Phil. 453 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
14 Id. at 476-478.
15 G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64003> [Per J. Tijam, En Banc].
16 Id.
17Atty. Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, 793 Phil. 453, 473-477 (2016) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
18 Ponencia, pp. 13-14.
19 Ponencia, p. 18.
20 G.R. No. 197930, April 17, 2018, [PerJ. Reyes, Jr., En Banc].
21 Id.