Case Digest: PAGC v. Office of the President
G.R. No. 176058: March 23, 2011
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners,v. SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.
ABAD, J.:
FACTS:
The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous letter-complaint from alleged employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The letter accused DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A. Pleyto of extortion, illicit affairs, and manipulation of DPWH projects.
In the course of the PAGCs investigation, Pleyto submitted his 1999,2000,and 2001SALNs. During the course of the investigation, it was observed that while Pleyto said therein that his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her business interests and financial connections. Thus, Pleyto was charged with PAGC before the Office of the President (OP) for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6713,also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
PAGC recommended to the OP that Pleyto be dismissed from office with forfeiture of all government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service. The OP approved the recommendation. Pleyto filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. He then raised the matter before the CA which permanently enjoined the PAGC and the OP from implementing their decisions. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in not finding Pleytos failure to indicate his spouses business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713.
HELD: Yes. Pleyto guilty of simple negligence.
Political Law- An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence.
After threshing out the other issues, this Court found that Pleytos failure to disclose his wife's business interests and financial connections constituted simple negligence, not gross misconduct or dishonesty.
On the front page of petitioners 2002 SALN, it is already clearly stated that his wife is a businesswoman, and it can be logically deduced that she had business interests. Such a statement of his wifes occupation would be inconsistent with the intention to conceal his and his wifes business interests. That petitioner and/or his wife had business interests is thus readily apparent on the face of the SALN; it is just that the missing particulars may be subject of an inquiry or investigation.
An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence. Thus, at most, petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALN was accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail.
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 a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Both Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees require the accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities.
Petitioner was negligent for failing to comply with his duty to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests in his SALN. He was also negligent in relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein. Petitioners negligence, though, is only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part, and in consideration of the fact that his SALNs actually disclose the full extent of his assets and the fact that he and his wife had other business interests.
Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. Hence, a finding that a public officer or employee is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence.
GRANTED.
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners,v. SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.
ABAD, J.:
FACTS:
The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous letter-complaint from alleged employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). The letter accused DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A. Pleyto of extortion, illicit affairs, and manipulation of DPWH projects.
In the course of the PAGCs investigation, Pleyto submitted his 1999,2000,and 2001SALNs. During the course of the investigation, it was observed that while Pleyto said therein that his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her business interests and financial connections. Thus, Pleyto was charged with PAGC before the Office of the President (OP) for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6713,also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."
PAGC recommended to the OP that Pleyto be dismissed from office with forfeiture of all government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service. The OP approved the recommendation. Pleyto filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. He then raised the matter before the CA which permanently enjoined the PAGC and the OP from implementing their decisions. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA erred in not finding Pleytos failure to indicate his spouses business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713.
HELD: Yes. Pleyto guilty of simple negligence.
Political Law- An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence.
After threshing out the other issues, this Court found that Pleytos failure to disclose his wife's business interests and financial connections constituted simple negligence, not gross misconduct or dishonesty.
On the front page of petitioners 2002 SALN, it is already clearly stated that his wife is a businesswoman, and it can be logically deduced that she had business interests. Such a statement of his wifes occupation would be inconsistent with the intention to conceal his and his wifes business interests. That petitioner and/or his wife had business interests is thus readily apparent on the face of the SALN; it is just that the missing particulars may be subject of an inquiry or investigation.
An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence. Thus, at most, petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALN was accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail.
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 a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Both Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees require the accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities.
Petitioner was negligent for failing to comply with his duty to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interests in his SALN. He was also negligent in relying on the family bookkeeper/accountant to fill out his SALN and in signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein. Petitioners negligence, though, is only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part, and in consideration of the fact that his SALNs actually disclose the full extent of his assets and the fact that he and his wife had other business interests.
Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. Hence, a finding that a public officer or employee is administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence.
GRANTED.
