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 1999, 2000, and 2001 Sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). While Pleyto stated his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her specific business interests and financial connections, indicating “NONE” in 1999 and leaving the column blank in 2000 and 2001. Pleyto attributed this to his wife’s bookkeeper preparing 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 first, and that his omission was not punishable under R.A. 3019. Upon reinvestigation ordered by the Executive Secretary, PAGC confirmed his wife operated several registered businesses. The DPWH also informed PAGC it had no mechanism for reviewing or validating SALN entries. The OP denied Pleyto’s motion. 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 grave misconduct. This ruling applied the doctrine of “conclusiveness of judgment” from 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 act was done in good faith, constituted an error of judgment, and the omission was inconsistent with an intent to conceal since the SALN itself stated his wife was a businesswoman. His negligence lay in failing to ensure his SALN was properly accomplished and in relying on his bookkeeper without verification, but absent bad faith or intent to deceive, it was only simple negligence.
2. On the Review and Compliance Procedure: The Court found the procedure under Section 10 of R.A. 6713 inapplicable. The provision requires designated committees to establish procedures to review if statements are complete and in proper form and to direct corrective action. However, the DPWH informed PAGC it had no such mechanism for reviewing the entries in the SALNs of its thousands of employees and merely reminded them to file on time. Since the required review mechanism was not established, Pleyto could not invoke it as a precondition to administrative charges. Furthermore, the Court noted that a SALN is a sworn statement, and the responsibility for its accuracy ultimately rests with the declarant, beyond mere corrective guidance from a superior.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The petition was DENIED. The Court of Appeals’ Decision dated December 29, 2006, which set aside the Office of the President’s orders dismissing Salvador A. Pleyto, was AFFIRMED.