G.R. No. 238903 , March 24, 2021
Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Emelita Maraasin Braña, Respondent.

FACTS

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a complaint against respondent Emelita Maraasin Braña, a public official, for alleged violations including Serious Dishonesty. The complaint alleged she acquired wealth disproportionate to her lawful income from 2001 to 2013 and failed to properly declare assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). Specific allegations included: 1) Failure to disclose a parcel of land in La Buena Vida Subdivision acquired in 2008; 2) Failure to declare the construction cost of a building housing her businesses; 3) Failure to declare a 2007 Isuzu Crosswind; 4) Failure to declare a firearm; 5) Failure to declare investments in her businesses; 6) Failure to declare a business interest; 7) Misleading declaration of two lots as one in Golden Glow Village; and 8) The practice of lumping together various personal properties and liabilities in her SALNs, making it difficult to ascertain increases.
In her defense, respondent claimed: 1) The La Buena Vida lot was assigned to another person and the title under her name was inadvertent; 2) The building construction cost was declared under “hauling and other equipment”; 3) The vehicle was declared as a “service car” in her 2007 SALN; 4) The firearm was government-issued to her husband; 5) No franchise fees were paid for the businesses.
The Office of the Ombudsman found respondent administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and ordered her dismissal from service with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence of intent to deceive and upholding respondent’s defense of good faith. The Ombudsman filed this petition, arguing the CA erred in not dismissing the petition for forum shopping and in exonerating respondent.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent violated the rule against forum shopping by filing successive petitions before the Court of Appeals.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in exonerating the respondent from administrative liability for Serious Dishonesty.

RULING

1. No forum shopping. The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s finding that respondent did not violate the rule against forum shopping. The test for forum shopping involves identity of parties, rights asserted, reliefs prayed for, and facts. The circumstances negated forum shopping: her Petition for Certiorari sought to prevent the implementation of the Ombudsman’s Decision pending her Motion for Reconsideration, while her subsequent Petition for Review was an appeal of the Order dismissing that Motion. The reliefs sought were dissimilar, and the CA eventually consolidated and dismissed the first petition as moot.
2. No administrative liability for Serious Dishonesty. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision exonerating respondent. Citing Navarro v. Ombudsman, the Court ruled that in administrative cases involving SALN discrepancies, the element of intent to commit a wrong is crucial. Dishonesty requires a willful disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. The Court found respondent’s explanations for the alleged discrepancies plausible and made in good faith. The properties in question were, in fact, declared in her SALNs, albeit under different labels or categories, which negates an intent to conceal. The misdeclarations were not willful or deliberate. The Court emphasized that the laws on SALN aim to curtail unexplained wealth, and where the source of wealth can be properly accounted for, it is “explained wealth” which the law does not penalize. Since the intent to commit a wrong was wanting, respondent could not be held administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.