DE CASTRO v. FIO

LEOVIGILDO A. DE CASTRO, Petitioner vs. FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN and the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondents

G.R. No. 192723

June 5, 2017

Facts:

This case is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court against the Decision and Resolution rendered by the Second Division of the Court of Appeals (CA). The Assailed Decision and Resolution stem from an appeal from the Decision rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), finding petitioner Leovigildo A. De Castro (Leovigildo) guilty of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service, cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

The' administrative charges filed against Leovigildo are anchored on his alleged failure to file truthful Statements of Assets and Liabilities (SALNs) for the years 1994, 1995 and 1996, and explain the manifest disproportion between his declared income for the years 1973 to 2004 and the value of the assets he acquired within the same period.

Leovigildo is working in the Bureau of Customs (BOC) as storekeeper at the Manila International Airport. His wife Marina Rios also served as a clerk in the now defunct Philippine Atomic Energy Commission, rose through the ranks, until she retired as a training officer sometime in 1988.

Based on the Certificates of Employment and Compensation which form part of the records of the case, Leovigildo and Marina's declared income from 1974 to 2004 amounted to ₱l0,841,412.28. The Ombudsman, through its Field Investigation Office (FIO), conducted motu proprio lifestyle checks on government officials and employees. After that lifestyle check, records show that there are other properties and business interests belonging to Leovigildo which were not declared in his SALN as such as his investments in Lemar Export and Import Corporation.

There are also properties registered under the name of his children, which should be considered as part of his undisclosed assets, in view of the fact that during the time of the acquisition, the children have no sources of income or means of livelihood of their own. 13 Consequently, the FIO concluded that Leovigildo and Marina's assets and expenses from 1974-2004 amounted to ₱30,829,603.48, 18 and found that this was manifestly disproportionate to their declared income of ₱l0,841,412.28. 19 Subsequently, the FIO filed a Complaint before the Ombudsman, charging Leovigildo of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the ServiceOn March 24, 2006, the Ombudsman issued an Order placing Leovigildo under preventive suspension.

The Ombudsman found that while Leovigildo' s children were all practicing professionals at the time of the investigation, the documentary evidence on record show that the cost of the Disputed Assets were grossly disproportionate to their respective incomes at the time of acquisition. Thus, the Ombudsman concluded that Leovigildo deliberately placed the Disputed Assets in the names of his children to exclude them from his SALNs. Leovigildo filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) which the Ombudsman denied for lack ofmerit.44 Hence, Leovigildo filed an appeal (Appeal) before the CA via Rule 43, ascribing both errors of fact and law to the Ombudsman.

Leovigildo questioned the Ombudsman's authority to directly review his SALNs, arguing that under Section 10 of R.A. 6713, it is the Commissioner of Customs who is vested with authority to review the SALNs filed by the employees of the BOC. Further, Leovigildo insisted that the Ombudsman's findings were not supported by substantial evidence. However, the CA held that the Ombudsman possesses ample authority to review Leovigildo's SALN pursuant to its Constitutional mandate and CA rendered the Assailed Decision dismissing the Appeal. Hence, the petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Assailed Decision and Resolution finding Leovigildo administratively liable for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.

Ruling:

As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. However, there are recognized exceptions to this general rule, namely: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. x x x58 (Emphasis supplied) The Petition is granted, in part. The Court finds that while the CA correctly ruled that Leovigildo's acts constitute Dishonesty, it erred when it further held that such acts also constitute Grave Misconduct. Accordingly, the Court finds sufficient basis to warrant the modification of the Assailed Decision in this respect. The Ombudsman possesses sufficient authority to undertake a direct review of Leovigildo's SALN Leovigildo claims that he does not question the general authority of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute erring public officials and employees. However, he submits that Section 10 of R.A. 6713 vests upon heads of executive departments the specific and direct authority to review their subordinates' SALNs. Proceeding therefrom, Leovigildo alleges that the review, investigation and corrective action taken by the Ombudsman collectively constitute a violation of R.A. 6713, an encroachment of the authority of the Commissioner of Customs, 59and a blatant disregard of the latter's guidelines prescribing the review and compliance procedure for the submission of SALNs governing the employees and officials of the BOC. Leovigildo is mistaken.

Leovigildo's acts do not constitute Grave Misconduct Leovigildo's administrative liability primarily rests on his failure to faithfully comply with the SALN requirement, and the acquisition of assets manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. These acts, while undoubtedly inimical to public service, do not constitute Grave Misconduct. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. Misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of established rules are present.65To constitute Misconduct, the act or omission complained of must have a direct relation to the public officer's duties and affect not only his character as a private individual, but also, and more importantly, the performance of his official duties as a public servant. Nevertheless, Leovigildo cannot be completely absolved of liability.

There exists substantial evidence on record to hold Leovigildo liable for Dishonesty. To counter the charge of Dishonesty, Leovigildo argues that the Ombudsman's findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures, and that the CA, in turn, failed to appreciate important facts which, if properly considered, will justify a reversal of the Ombudsman's findings. In particular, Leovigildo adopts the allegations in his Appeal and asserts that the Ombudsman (i) failed to attach the BI records which supposedly prove that he and his family had taken seventy (70) foreign trips while he was in government service, and (ii) glossed over his children's professional qualifications, as well as other circumstances which prove that they each had the financial capacity to legitimately acquire the Disputed Assets which were attributed to him. 71 The constitutionalization of public accountability shows the kind of standards of public officers that are woven into the fabric of our legal system. To reiterate, public office is a public trust, which embodies a set of standards such as responsibility, integrity and efficiency. Unfortunately, reality may sometimes depart from these standards, but our society has consciously embedded them in our laws so that they may be demanded and enforced as legal principles, and the Court is mandated to apply these principles to bridge actual reality to the norms envisioned for our public service.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED IN PART. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 29, 2009 and Resolution dated June 23, 2010 in CA-G.R. SP No. 99752 are MODIFIED. The charge of Grave Misconduct against petitioner Leovigildo A. De Castro is DISMISSED. However, his conviction for Dishonesty is AFFIRMED, and accordingly, he is meted the corresponding penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE and shall carry with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

SO ORDERED.