G.R. No. 176058; March 23, 2011
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners, vs. SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.

FACTS

On December 19, 2002, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous complaint against DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A. Pleyto. During its investigation, PAGC examined Pleyto’s Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for 1999, 2000, and 2001. While Pleyto stated his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her specific business interests and financial connections in the designated column, indicating “NONE” for 1999 and leaving it blank for 2000 and 2001. Pleyto attributed this omission to his wife’s bookkeeper who prepared the forms. On April 29, 2003, PAGC charged Pleyto before the Office of the President (OP) for violating Section 8 of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The OP approved PAGC’s recommendation for dismissal with forfeiture of benefits. Pleyto moved for reconsideration, arguing he should have been allowed to avail of the Review and Compliance Procedure under Section 10 of R.A. 6713 to correct his SALN, and that his failure to declare was not punishable under R.A. 3019. A reinvestigation confirmed his wife operated several registered businesses. The DPWH indicated it had no mechanism for reviewing SALN entries. The OP denied reconsideration. The Court of Appeals granted Pleyto’s petition and enjoined the implementation of the dismissal. PAGC and the OP elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not finding Pleyto’s failure to indicate his spouse’s business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that under the Review and Compliance Procedure, Pleyto should have first been allowed to correct the error in his SALNs before being charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals.
1. On the Nature of the Violation: The Court ruled that Pleyto’s failure to disclose his wife’s business interests and financial connections in his 1999, 2000, and 2001 SALNs constituted simple negligence, not dishonesty or gross misconduct. This ruling applies the doctrine of “conclusiveness of judgment” based on a prior case involving Pleyto (G.R. No. 169982, Pleyto v. Philippine National Police-CIDG), which involved identical facts and issues concerning his 2001 and 2002 SALNs. In that case, the Court held that the omission, given that Pleyto had stated his wife was a businesswoman on the SALN’s front page (making her business interests logically deducible and inconsistent with an intent to conceal), was done in good faith and constituted only an error of judgment. His reliance on a bookkeeper and failure to verify the entries amounted to negligence, but not the gross negligence required for charges of dishonesty or grave misconduct. The penalty for simple negligence is not dismissal.
2. On the Review and Compliance Procedure: The Court found the procedure under Section 10 of R.A. 6713 inapplicable to Pleyto’s case. The provision requires designated committees to establish procedures to review if SALNs are complete and in proper form and to direct corrective action. However, the DPWH informed PAGC that it had no such mechanism for reviewing or validating the entries in the SALNs of its thousands of employees; it merely reminded officials to file on time. Since the required review mechanism was not established, Pleyto could not have availed of it. Therefore, his argument that he should have been allowed to correct his SALN first before being charged was unwarranted.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The Court of Appeals’ decision was affirmed. Pleyto was found guilty only of simple negligence, not warranting dismissal. The precise penalty for simple negligence, as referenced from the prior case (Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG), is forfeiture of the equivalent of one year’s salary.