G.R. No. 230260 & G.R. No. 231831, February 06, 2023
Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service, Rep. by Reynalito L. Lazaro and Jesus S. Bueno, Petitioners, vs. Raymond Pinzon Ventura (SG25), Collector of Customs, Bureau of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila, Respondent. / Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Raymond Pinzon Ventura, Respondent.

FACTS

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (RIPS) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Raymond Pinzon Ventura, a Collector of Customs, for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. The charges were: (1) failure to declare his spouse and children in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN); (2) false declaration of real properties in his SALN by declaring properties not registered in his name; (3) failure to declare his business interest in two corporations and the business interest of his wife; and (4) failure to secure the necessary travel authority from the Department of Finance for a trip to Macau in November 2008. Ventura defended himself by claiming he was estranged from his wife, that the properties were acquired but not yet transferred to his name, that the corporations were non-operational, and that he secured travel authority from the Bureau of Customs instead. The Office of the Ombudsman found Ventura guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct for the nondisclosure of his family, imposing the penalty of dismissal with accessory penalties. The Court of Appeals modified this ruling, finding Ventura liable only for simple dishonesty and imposing a three-month suspension. Both RIPS and the Office of the Ombudsman filed Petitions for Review before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman from dismissal to a three-month suspension for simple dishonesty.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions, reversed the Court of Appeals’ Amended Decision, and reinstated the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision with modification. The Court held that Ventura’s act of deliberately concealing his marital status and children in his PDS and SALN constituted serious dishonesty. The Court emphasized that a public office is a public trust and that public officers are held to a higher standard. The concealment was not a mere inadvertence but a deliberate attempt to mislead, which is a reflection of a person’s character and integrity. The offense is classified as serious dishonesty because it was committed with a clear intent to violate the law and deceive, and it involved his PDS, a document connected to his employment. The Court rejected the appellate court’s finding that the dishonesty did not cause damage or prejudice, as the act itself of making a false statement in an official document is prejudicial to the government’s interest. The penalty for serious dishonesty under the relevant rules is dismissal for the first offense. However, since Ventura had already been separated from the service, the penalty was converted into a fine equivalent to one year’s salary, with perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.