DAPLAS v. DOF

CONCEPCION C. DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

G.R. No. 221153

April 17, 2017

FACTS

Petitioner joined the government service as a casual clerk for the Municipal Treasurer of Kawit, Cavite sometime in 1968, and had held various posts until she was appointed as the Pasay City Treasurer on May 19, 1989, with a gross monthly salary of ₱28,722.00. At the time material to the complaints, petitioner was concurrently holding the position of Officer-in- Charge, Regional Director of the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) in Cebu City.

Two (2) separate complaints were filed against petitioner by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) and the Field Investigation Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman; respondents) for averred violations, constituting Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, arising out of her failure to disclose the true and detailed statement of her assets, liabilities, and net worth, business interests, and financial connections, and those of her spouse in her SALNs.

Petitioner insisted that she acquired her properties through lawful means, and maintained that she was not totally dependent on her salary to finance the said acquisitions. 

In a Joint Decision dated May 8, 2007, the Ombudsman found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, and imposed the penalty of Dismissal, and its accessory penalties, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied in a Joint Order dated May 30, 2011, prompting her to elevate her case before the Court of Appeals (CA)

In a Decision dated August 27, 2014, the CA dismissed the petition, holding that the Ombudsman's ruling was sufficiently supported by substantial evidence.  It found that petitioner's failure to declare all her assets and business interests constituted Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and a violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713. It gave no credence to her defense of good faith. Moreover, it ruled that her resignation from the government service did not render the Ombudsman ruling moot.

Dissatisfied, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA denied; hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the Joint Decision of the Ombudsman finding petitioner liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, and imposing on her the corresponding penalties.

HELD

The petition is partly meritorious.

In the present case, it is undisputed that petitioner failed to declare some properties in her SALNs for the years 1997 to 2003 despite the legal obligation to do so.

Both the Ombudsman and the CA held that such omission provides substantial basis to hold petitioner liable for the administrative offenses of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal from service, with all its accessory penalties.

The Court disagrees.

Records reveal that the element of intent to commit a wrong required under both the administrative offenses of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct are lacking to warrant petitioner's dismissal from service.

Here, the Court finds that there is no substantial evidence of intent to commit a wrong, or to deceive the authorities, and conceal the other properties in petitioner's and her husband's names. Petitioner's failure to disclose in her 1997 SALN her business interest in KEI is not a sufficient badge of dishonesty in the absence of bad faith, or any malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes

Notably, petitioner readily admitted in her Counter-Affidavit her business interest in KEI in 1997, which belied any malicious intent to conceal. While concededly, the omission would increase her net worth for the year 1997, the Court observes that the Ombudsman declared respondent's evidence insufficient to warrant a finding that petitioner had any unexplained wealth. On the contrary, it found that her children have the financial capacity to put up KEI.

Likewise, the charge of Grave Misconduct against petitioner must fail. Verily, the omission to include the subject properties in petitioner's SALNs, by itself, does not amount to Grave Misconduct, in the absence of showing that such omission had, in some way, hindered the rendition of sound public service for there is no direct relation or connection between the two.

Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to hold petitioner liable for the charges of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, but declares her guilty, instead, of Simple Negligence in accomplishing her SALN.

The petition is PARTLYGRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE. A new one is entered finding petitioner Concepcion C. Daplas guilty of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE in accomplishing her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for the years 1997 to 2003, and is meted a fine in the amount equivalent to one (1) month and one (1) day of her last salary.

JLD