Daplas vs. Department of Finance

9/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 823

G.R. No. 221153. April 17, 2017. *

CONCEPCION C. DAPLAS, City Treasurer, Pasay City, and
Concurrent OIC, Regional Director Bureau of Local Government
Finance (BLGF) Region VII, petitioner, vs. DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, represented by TROY FRANCIS C. PIZARRO,
JOSELITO F. FERNANDEZ, REYNALDO** L. LAZARO,
MELCHOR B. PIOL, and ISMAEL S. LEONOR, and THE
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, respondents.
Government Employees; Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net

Worth; The requirement of filing a Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth (SALN) is enshrined in no less than the 1987 Constitution in order to
promote transparency in the civil service, and
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
** “Reynalito” in some parts of the Records; Rollo, p. 98.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d59fd2ca7f7cff3aa003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
45
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 45

Daplas vs. Department of Finance
operates as a deterrent against government officials bent on enriching

themselves through unlawful means.—The requirement of filing a SALN
is enshrined in no less than the 1987 Constitution in order to promote
transparency in the civil service, and operates as a deterrent against
government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful
means. By mandate of law, i.e., RA 6713, it behooves every government
official or employee to accomplish and submit a sworn statement
completely disclosing his or her assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial
and business interests, including those of his/her spouse and unmarried
children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households, in order
to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter
usually results from nondisclosure of such matters.
Same; Dishonesty; 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.—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.
Same; Misconduct; 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.—Misconduct 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.
Without any of these elements, the transgression of an established rule is
properly characterized as simple misconduct only. Most importantly,
without a nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of
duty, the charge of grave misconduct shall necessarily fail.

46
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth; Dishonesty;

Mere non-declaration of the required data in the Statement of Assets,
Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) does not automatically amount to such an
offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make
false statements.—Indeed, the failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubt
the integrity of the public officer or employee, and would normally amount
to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere non-declaration
of the required data in the SALN does not automatically amount to such an
offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make
false statements. In addition, a public officer or employee becomes
susceptible to dishonesty only when such non-declaration results in the
accumulated wealth becoming manifestly disproportionate to his/her
income, and income from other sources, and he/she fails to properly
account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions.
Same; Same; Same; Absent any intent to commit a wrong, and having
accounted for the source of the “undisclosed wealth,” as in this case,
petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty of the charge of Dishonesty; but at the
most, of mere negligence for having failed to accomplish her Statement of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) properly and accurately.—It
should be emphasized that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the
acquisition of unexplained wealth. Thus, in several cases where the
source of the undisclosed wealth was properly accounted for, the Court
deemed the same an “explained wealth” which the law does not
penalize. Consequently, absent any intent to commit a wrong, and having
accounted for the source of the “undisclosed wealth,” as in this case,
petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty of the charge of Dishonesty; but at the
most, of mere negligence for having failed to accomplish her SALN
properly and accurately.
Same; Same; Simple Negligence; An act done in good faith, which
constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or
purposes, as in the present case, is merely Simple Negligence.—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

47
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 47

negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. An act done

in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no
ulterior motives and/or purposes, as in the present case, is merely
Simple Negligence.
Same; Same; Same; The Supreme Court (SC) 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
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).—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. Simple Negligence is akin to Simple Neglect of
Duty, which is a less grave offense punishable with suspension without pay
for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense.
Since the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed on account of
petitioner’s resignation, and considering that she readily admitted her
omissions which do not appear to have been attended by any bad faith or
fraudulent intent, the Court finds that the penalty of fine in the amount
equivalent to one (1) month and one (1) day of petitioner’s last salary is
reasonable and just under the premises.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Herrera, Batacan & Associates Law Firm for petitioner.
The Solicitor General for respondents.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition1 for review on certiorari assailing
the Decision2 dated August 27, 2014 and the Resolu-
_______________
1 Id., at pp. 41-69.

2 Id., at pp. 12-32. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with
Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.

48

tion3 dated October 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-
G.R. S.P. No. 122851, which dismissed petitioner Concepcion C.
Daplas’ (petitioner) petition for review, thereby upholding the Joint
Decision4 dated May 8, 2007 of the Office of the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman) in the administrative aspects of the cases, docketed as
OMB-C-A-05-0234-E and OMB-C-A-06-0354-G. The Ombudsman
found petitioner guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
violation of Section 8(A) of Republic Act No. (RA) 6713, and
imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, and all its accessory
penalties, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.

The 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
P28,722.00. 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.5
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 violations6 of
Sections 7 and 8 of RA 3019,7 Section 8(A)
3 Id., at pp. 34-37.

4 Id., at pp. 97-133. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer
Leilani P. Tagulao-Marquez, recommended for approval by Assistant Ombudsman
Pelagio S. Apostol, and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark E.

Jalandoni.
5 Id., at pp. 98-99.
6 Id., at p. 98.
7 Entitled “ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT,” as Amended (August 17,
1960).

49
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 49

of RA 6713,8 Section 2 of RA 1379,9 Article 18310 of the Revised

Penal Code (RPC), and Executive Order No. (EO) 611 dated March
12, 1986,12 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 Statements of Assets,
Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs).13 In particular, petitioner: (1)
failed to declare (a) a
_______________
8 Entitled “AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC
OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY
SERVICE, ENUMERATING PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,” OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “CODE
OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES” (February
20, 1989).
9 Entitled “AN ACT DECLARING FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE ANY PROPERTY
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEEDINGS THEREFOR” (June 18, 1955).
10 Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn
affirmation.—The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisión
correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who,
knowingly make untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the
next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in
which the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall
commit any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the three preceding articles of
this section, shall suffer the respective penalties provided therein.
11 Entitled “PROVIDING PROCEDURES IN THE DISPOSITION OF REQUESTS OF
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES FOR AUTHORITY TO TRAVEL ABROAD” issued by

former President Corazon C. Aquino on March 12, 1986.
12 Rollo, pp. 13-14.
13 Id., at pp. 99 and 112.

50

1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan with Plate No. TBH-238 (Galant

sedan) registered under the name of her late husband with an
estimated value of P250,000.00; (b) her stock subscription in KEI
Realty and Development Corp. (KEI) valued at P1,500,000.00 with
a total paid up amount of P800,000.00;14 and (c) several real
properties in Cavite15 (which had been the subject of a previous
administrative complaint against her that had been dismissed);16 and
(2) traveled multiple times abroad without securing a travel
authority, which cast doubt on her real net worth and actual source
of income considering her modest salary.17
For her part, 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.18 She
alleged that: (a) her late husband purchased the Galant sedan out of
his personal money, hence, the same did not form part of their
conjugal properties;19 (b) she had already divested her interest in
KEI in 1998, along with her husband, but her husband and children
reacquired their respective shares sometime in 2003;20 and (c) her
travels were sponsored by the government or by her relatives
abroad.21

The Ombudsman’s Ruling

In a Joint Decision22 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
_______________
14 Id., at pp. 102-103.

15 Id., at pp. 99-100.
16 Id., at pp. 113-114.
17 Id., at pp. 104-105.
18 Id., at p. 106.
19 Id., at p. 122.
20 Id., at pp. 108-109.
21 Id., at p. 106.
22 Id., at pp. 97-133.

51
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 51

of Dismissal, and its accessory penalties, without prejudice to

criminal prosecution.23 It observed that petitioner committed perjury
under Article 183 of the RPC when she failed to declare in her
SALNs for 1997 to 2003 the Galant sedan, and her business interest
in KEI in her 1997 SALN, which is sufficient basis to hold her liable
for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct.24 Likewise, it found her
liable for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 for her failure to
disclose the said assets despite the legal obligation to do so.25
However, the Ombudsman found respondents to have failed to
substantiate the charges that: (a) petitioner’s numerous foreign
travels were indicia of her acquisition of unlawful wealth;26 and (b)
KEI was put up as a subterfuge for petitioner’s ill-gotten wealth.27
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which
was denied in a Joint Order28 dated May 30, 2011, prompting her to
elevate her case before the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as
C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 122851.

The CA’s Ruling

29
In a Decision dated August 27, 2014, the CA dismissed the
petition, holding that the Ombudsman’s ruling was sufficiently
supported by substantial evidence.30 It found that
_______________
23 Id., at pp. 131-132.

24 Id., at pp. 125-126.
25 Id., at p. 127.
26 Id., at p. 119.
27 Id., at p. 128.
28 Id., at pp. 134-149. Penned by Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer
Leilani P. Tagulao-Marquez, reviewed by Director Nellie P. Boguen-Golez,
recommended by Assistant Ombudsman Marilou B. Ancheta-Mejica, and approved
by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
29 Id., at pp. 12-32.
30 Id., at p. 23.

52

petitioner’s failure to declare all her assets and business interests

constituted Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and a violation of
Section 8(A) of RA 6713.31 It gave no credence to her defense of
good faith considering that she knew of the said assets and gave no
justification for their exclusion in her SALNs.32 Moreover, it ruled
that her resignation from the government service did not render the
Ombudsman ruling moot.33
Dissatisfied, petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the CA
denied in a Resolution34 dated October 22, 2015; hence, the instant
petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue for the Court’s resolution is 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.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition is partly meritorious.
The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined in no less than
the 1987 Constitution35 in order to promote trans-
_______________
31 Id., at p. 26.
32 Id., at pp. 29-30.
33 Id., at pp. 22-23.
34 Id., at pp. 34-37.
35 Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as
often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his
assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice President, the
Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional
Commissions and other constitu-

53
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 53

parency in the civil service, and operates as a deterrent against

government officials bent on enriching themselves through
unlawful means.36 By mandate of law, i.e., RA 6713, it behooves
every government official or employee to accomplish and submit a
sworn statement completely disclosing his or her assets, liabilities,
net worth, and financial and business interests, including those of
his/her spouse and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of
age living in their households,37 in order to suppress any questionable
accumulation of wealth
questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter usually usually from nondisclosure
results from nondisclosure of such matters.38
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 ITC: No intent to commit a
wrong
required under both the administrative offenses of Dishonesty and
Grave Misconduct39 are lacking to warrant petitioner’s dismissal
from service.
Dishonesty is committed when an individual intentionally

makes a false statement of any material fact,
_______________
tional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the
declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.
36 Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman, 728 Phil. 210, 232; 717 SCRA
503, 524 (2014).
37 See Section 8 of RA 6713.
38 Office of the Ombudsman v. Racho, 656 Phil. 148, 161; 641 SCRA 148, 159
(2011).
39 Id.

54

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.40
On the other hand, misconduct 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 grave misconduct
from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule
must be manifest.41 Without any of these elements, the
transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as
simple misconduct only.42 Most importantly, without a nexus
between the act complained of and the discharge of duty, the
charge of grave misconduct shall necessarily fail.43
Indeed, the failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubt the
integrity of the public officer or employee, and would normally
amount to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere
non-declaration of the required data in the SALN does not
automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires

malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements. In
addition, a public officer or employee becomes susceptible to
dishonesty only when such non-declaration results in the
accumulated wealth becoming manifestly disproportionate to
his/her income, and
_______________
40 Id.
41 Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, 674 Phil. 286, 296; 658
SCRA 497, 506 (2011).
42 Id.
43 Supra note 36.

55
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 55

income from other sources, and he/she fails to properly account

or explain these sources of income and acquisitions.44
Here, the Court finds that there is no substantial evidence of ITC
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 BAD FAITH
with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for

ulterior purposes.45
Notably, petitioner readily admitted in her Counter-Affidavit her
business interest in KEI in 1997,46 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.47 On the contrary, it found
that her children have the financial capacity to put up KEI.48
It should be emphasized that the laws on SALN aim to curtail
the acquisition of unexplained wealth. Thus, in several cases49
where the source of the undisclosed wealth was properly

accounted for, the Court deemed the same an “explained
wealth” which the law does not
_______________
44 Id., at p. 234; p. 526.

45 See Monticalbo v. Maraya, Jr., 664 Phil. 1, 9; 648 SCRA 573, 578 (2011).
46 Rollo, pp. 123-124.
47 Id., at p. 130.
48 Id., at p. 129.
49 Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 210128, August 17, 2016, 801
SCRA 46; Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 36; Office of the
Ombudsman v. Racho, supra note 38.

56

penalize. Consequently, absent any intent to commit a wrong, and

having accounted for the source of the “undisclosed wealth,” as in
this case, petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty of the charge of
Dishonesty; but at the most, of mere negligence for having failed to
accomplish her SALN properly and accurately.
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.50 An act done in Simple negligence bc act
is done in good faith
good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for
no ulterior motives and/or purposes,51 as in the present case, is
merely Simple Negligence.
In the same vein, petitioner’s failure to declare the Galant sedan
in her SALNs from 1997 to 2003 stemmed from the fact that the
same was registered in her husband’s name, and purportedly
purchased out of his personal money.52 While such bare allegation is
not enough to overthrow the presumption that the car was conjugal,
neither is there sufficient showing that petitioner was motivated by
bad faith in not disclosing the same. In fact, the Ombudsman
conceded that petitioner’s husband was financially capable of

purchasing the car,53 negating any “unexplained wealth” to warrant
petitioner’s dismissal due to Dishonesty.
_______________
50 Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, id.; Office of the Ombudsman v.

Bernardo, 705 Phil. 524, 543; 692 SCRA 557, 575 (2013); Pleyto v. Philippine
National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), 563 Phil.
842, 910; 538 SCRA 534, 587 (2007).
51 Pleyto v. Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (PNP-CIDG), id.
52 Rollo, p. 122.
53 Id.

57
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 57

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.54
Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to hold petitioner liable
Guilty of simple
for the charges of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, but declares negligence
her guilty, instead, of Simple Negligence in accomplishing her
SALN. Simple Negligence is akin to Simple Neglect of Duty,55
which is a less grave offense punishable with suspension without
pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first
offense.56 Since the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed
on account of petitioner’s resignation,57 and considering that she
readily admitted her omissions which do not appear to have been
attended by any bad faith or fraudulent intent,58 the Court finds that
the penalty of fine in the amount equivalent to one (1) month and
one (1) day59 of petitioner’s last salary is reasonable and just under
the premises.
_______________
54 Supra note 36 at pp. 231-232; p. 523.

55 See Reyes v. Cabusao, 502 Phil. 1; 463 SCRA 433 (2005).
56 See Section 46(D)(1) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (RRACCS).
57 Rollo, pp. 22-23.
58 Section 48 of the RRACCS grants the disciplining authority the discretion to
consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.
59 Section 47(2) of the RRACCS reads:
Section 47. Penalty of Fine.—The following are the guidelines for the
penalty of fine:
x x x x
2. The payment of penalty of fine in lieu of suspension shall be available
in Grave, Less Grave and Light Offenses where the penalty imposed is for six
(6) months or less at the

58

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

assailed Decision dated August 27, 2014 and the Resolution dated
October 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No.
122851 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.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Petition partly granted, judgment and resolution set aside. A new

one is entered finding Concepcion C. Daplas guilty of simple
negligence.
Notes.—While petitioner may be guilty of negligence in

accomplishing his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth
(SALN), he did not commit gross misconduct or dishonesty, for
there is no substantial evidence of his intent to deceive the

authorities and conceal his other sources of income or any of the real
properties in his and his wife’s names. (Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Bernardo, 692 SCRA 557 [2013])
_______________
ratio of one (1) day of suspension from the service to one (1) day fine[.] (Emphasis
supplied)
In relation thereto, Section 49 of the RRACCS provides:
Section 49. Manner of Imposition.—When applicable, the imposition
of the penalty may be made in accordance with the manner provided herein
below:
a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only
mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present. (Emphasis
supplied)

59
VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 59

Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly

accounted for, then it is “explained wealth” which the law does not
penalize. (Navarro vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 801 SCRA 46
[2016])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Daplas vs. Department of Finance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daplas vs. Department of Finance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daplas vs. Department of Finance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 823

G.R. No. 221153. April 17, 2017. *

Government Employees; Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 45

operates as a deterrent against government ofﬁcials bent on enriching

46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth; Dishonesty;

when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 47

negligence when a breach of duty is ﬂagrant and palpable. An act done

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

1 Id., at pp. 41-69.

48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3 Id., at pp. 34-37.

Pelagio S. Apostol, and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark E.

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 49

of RA 6713,8 Section 2 of RA 1379,9 Article 18310 of the Revised

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES FOR AUTHORITY TO TRAVEL ABROAD” issued by

50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan with Plate No. TBH-238 (Galant

14 Id., at pp. 102-103.

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 51

of Dismissal, and its accessory penalties, without prejudice to

23 Id., at pp. 131-132.

52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

petitioner’s failure to declare all her assets and business interests

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 53

parency in the civil service, and operates as a deterrent against

Dishonesty is committed when an individual intentionally

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud in order to

automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 55

income from other sources, and he/she fails to properly account

with furtive design or some motive of self-interest or ill will for

where the source of the undisclosed wealth was properly

44 Id., at p. 234; p. 526.

56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

penalize. Consequently, absent any intent to commit a wrong, and

conceded that petitioner’s husband was ﬁnancially capable of

50 Navarro v. Ofﬁce of the Ombudsman, id.; Ofﬁce of the Ombudsman v.

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 57

Likewise, the charge of Grave Misconduct against petitioner

54 Supra note 36 at pp. 231-232; p. 523.

58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Del Castillo

Petition partly granted, judgment and resolution set aside. A new

Notes.—While petitioner may be guilty of negligence in

there is no substantial evidence of his intent to deceive the

VOL. 823, APRIL 17, 2017 59

Where the source of the undisclosed wealth can be properly

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like