G.R. No. 201176, August 28, 2019
ESTRELLA ABID-BABANO, Petitioner, vs. [Respondent not named in provided text]

FACTS

Petitioner Estrella Abid-Babano was charged with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for alleged inaccuracies in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN). The charges stemmed from her failure to disclose her husband’s exclusive properties in her SALN, based on the regime of complete separation of property governing their marriage. The Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, acting on an anonymous complaint and after finding a prima facie case, formally charged her without first subjecting her SALN to the review and compliance procedure mandated by Section 10 of R.A. No. 6713.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner can be held liable for not disclosing her husband’s exclusive properties in her SALN under a regime of complete separation of property.
2. Whether petitioner can be held administratively and criminally liable for alleged defects in her SALN without first being given the opportunity to correct them through the review and compliance procedure under R.A. No. 6713.

RULING

1. No, petitioner cannot be held liable for not disclosing her husband’s exclusive properties. The concurring opinion agrees with the Court’s finding that petitioner is not liable for omitting her husband’s exclusive properties from her SALN, as their marriage is governed by a regime of complete separation of property. Assets that do not contribute to a public officer’s wealth and net worth need not be included in the SALN.
2. No, petitioner cannot be held liable without observance of the review and compliance procedure. The concurring opinion emphasizes that R.A. No. 6713 establishes a mandatory review and compliance procedure under Section 10. This requires government offices to have a Review and Compliance Committee evaluate SALNs for timeliness, completeness, and proper form. If deficiencies are found, the public officer must be informed and given 30 days to correct or supply missing information. Only after failure to comply within this period may disciplinary action be taken. This procedure serves as a buffer to prevent haphazard filing of actions and ensures fuller and more accurate disclosure.
– The opinion cites Atty. Navarro v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the Court stressed that public officers must be given the opportunity to explain or correct prima facie discrepancies in their SALNs before being held liable.
– In this case, the records show petitioner was not afforded this procedure; instead, she was directly charged based on an anonymous complaint. Thus, absent compliance with this mandatory procedure, she should not be held administratively liable.
ACCORDINGLY, the concurring opinion votes to GRANT the petition.