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.

FACTS

Petitioner Concepcion C. Daplas, the City Treasurer of Pasay City and concurrent OIC-Regional Director of the BLGF, was charged administratively before the Office of the Ombudsman for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 . The complaints alleged she failed to accurately declare her assets in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) for 1997 to 2003. Specifically, she omitted a 1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan registered under her late husband’s name and her stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp. valued at P1.5 million. Respondents argued these omissions cast doubt on her true net worth given her modest government salary.
Petitioner defended herself by claiming the vehicle was purchased with her husband’s personal funds and was not conjugal property. She also asserted she had divested her interest in KEI in 1998, though her family reacquired shares later. She maintained her properties were lawfully acquired and not solely dependent on her salary.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the Ombudsman’s finding that petitioner is administratively liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8(A) of R.A. No. 6713 .

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition partly meritorious. It upheld the findings of administrative liability but modified the penalty. The Court affirmed that petitioner’s failure to declare the Galant sedan and her business interest in KEI in her SALNs constituted Dishonesty and a violation of R.A. No. 6713 . The constitutional and statutory mandate to file a complete and sworn SALN is fundamental to promoting transparency and preventing illicit wealth accumulation in the public service. Petitioner’s omissions, being willful and intentional, negated any claim of good faith. Her defenses—questioning the conjugal nature of the vehicle and her divestment from KEI—were unavailing, as the legal obligation to disclose extends to all assets within her knowledge and control.
However, the Court modified the penalty from dismissal to a fine equivalent to one year’s salary, considering mitigating circumstances. The Court noted petitioner’s length of service, her claim that the omissions were not in bad faith, and the fact that this was her first offense. Applying the rules on administrative cases, the Court held that these factors warranted a mitigation of the penalty. The extreme penalty of dismissal was deemed too harsh under the circumstances. Thus, while her administrative liability was sustained, the imposed penalty was reduced accordingly.