SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 176058. March 23, 2011.]

PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE

OF THE PRESIDENT , petitioners, vs . SALVADOR A. PLEYTO ,
respondent.

DECISION

ABAD , J : p

This case is about the dismissal of a department undersecretary for failure to

declare in his Sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) his wife's
business interests and financial connections.
The Facts and the Case
On December 19, 2002 the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received
an anonymous letter-complaint 1 from alleged employees of the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH). The letter accused DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A.
Pleyto of extortion, illicit affairs, and manipulation of DPWH projects.
In the course of the PAGC's investigation, Pleyto submitted his 1999, 2 2000, 3
and 2001 4 SALNs. PAGC examined these and observed that, while Pleyto said therein
that his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her business interests and
financial connections. Thus, on April 29, 2003 PAGC charged Pleyto before the Office of
the President (OP) for violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6713, 5 also known
as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public O cials and Employees" and
Section 7 of R.A. 3019 6 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act." 7
Pleyto claimed that he and his wife had no business interests of any kind and for
this reason, he wrote "NONE" under the column "Business Interests and Financial
Connections" on his 1999 SALN and left the column blank in his 2000 and 2001 SALNs.
8 Further, he attributed the mistake to the fact that his SALNs were merely prepared by
his wife's bookkeeper. 9
On July 10, 2003 PAGC found Pleyto guilty as charged and recommended to the
OP his dismissal with forfeiture of all government nancial bene ts and disquali cation
to re-enter government service. 1 0 TSHIDa

On January 29, 2004 the OP approved the recommendation. 1 1 From this, Pleyto
led an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration 1 2 claiming that: 1) he should rst be
allowed to avail of the review and compliance procedure in Section 10 of R.A. 6713 1 3
before he is administratively charged; 2) he indicated "NONE" in the column for nancial
and business interests because he and his wife had no business interests related to
DPWH; and 3) his failure to indicate his wife's business interests is not punishable
under R.A. 3019.
On March 2, 2004 PAGC led its comment, 1 4 contending that Pleyto's reliance
on the Review and Compliance Procedure was unavailing because the mechanism had
not yet been established and, in any case, his SALN was a sworn statement, the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 contents of which were beyond the corrective guidance of the DPWH Secretary.
Furthermore, his failure to declare his wife's business interests and nancial
connections was highly irregular and was a form of dishonesty.
On March 11, 2005 Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita ordered PAGC to
conduct a reinvestigation of Pleyto's case. 1 5 In compliance, PAGC queried the
Department of Trade and Industry of Region III-Bulacan regarding the businesses
registered in the name of Miguela Pleyto, his wife. PAGC found that she operated the
following businesses: 1) R.S. Pawnshop, registered since May 19, 1993; 2) M. Pleyto
Piggery and Poultry Farm, registered since December 29, 1998; 3) R.S. Pawnshop-
Pulong Buhangin Branch, registered since July 24, 2000; and 4) RSP Laundry and Dry
Cleaning, registered since July 24, 2001. 1 6
The PAGC also inquired with the DPWH regarding their Review and Compliance
procedure. The DPWH said that, they merely reminded their o cials of the need for
them to comply with R.A. 6713 by ling their SALNs on time and that they had no
mechanism for reviewing or validating the entries in the SALNs of their more than
19,000 permanent, casual and contractual employees. 1 7
On February 21, 2006 the PAGC maintained its nding and recommendation
respecting Pleyto. 1 8 On August 29, 2006 the OP denied Pleyto's Motion for
Reconsideration. 1 9 Pleyto raised the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), 2 0 which on
December 29, 2006 granted Pleyto's petition and permanently enjoined the PAGC and
the OP from implementing their decisions. 2 1 This prompted the latter o ces to come
to this Court on a petition for review. 2 2
Issues Presented
This case presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not nding Pleyto's failure to indicate his
spouse's business interests in his SALNs a violation of Section 8 of R.A. 6713.
2. Whether or not the CA erred in nding that under the Review and Compliance
Procedure, Pleyto should have rst been allowed to correct the error in his SALNs
before being charged for violation of R.A. 6713. TcDIEH

The Court's Rulings

This is the second time Pleyto's SALNs are before this Court. The rst time was
in G.R. 169982, Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group (PNP-CIDG). 2 3 In that case, the PNP-CIDG led on July 28, 2003 administrative
charges against Pleyto with the O ce of the Ombudsman for violating, among others,
Section 8 of R.A. 6713 in that he failed to disclose in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs his
wife's business interests and financial connections.
On June 28, 2004 the O ce of the Ombudsman ordered Pleyto dismissed from
the service. He appealed the order to the CA but the latter dismissed his petition and
the motion for reconsideration that he subsequently led. Pleyto then assailed the CA's
ruling before this Court raising, among others, the following issues: 1) whether or not
Pleyto violated Section 8 (a) of R.A. 6713; and 2) whether or not Pleyto's reliance on the
Review and Compliance Procedure in the law was unwarranted.
After threshing out the other issues, this Court found that Pleyto's failure to
disclose his wife's business interests and nancial connections constituted simple
negligence, not gross misconduct or dishonesty. Thus:
Neither can petitioner's failure to answer the question, "Do you
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 have any business interest and other nancial connections including
those of your spouse and unmarried children living in your household?"
be tantamount to gross misconduct or dishonesty. On the front page of
petitioner's 2002 SALN, it is already clearly stated that his wife is a
businesswoman, and it can be logically deduced that she had business
interests. Such a statement of his wife's occupation would be
inconsistent with the intention to conceal his and his wife's business
interests. That petitioner and/or his wife had business interests is thus
readily apparent on the face of the SALN; it is just that the missing
particulars may be subject of an inquiry or investigation.
An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of
judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or purposes, does not qualify
as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence. Thus, at most,
petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain that his
SALN was accomplished properly, accurately, and in more detail.
Negligence is the omission of the diligence which is required by
the nature of the obligation and corresponds with the circumstances of
the persons, of the time and of the place. In the case of public o cials,
there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform
the obligation, and there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is
agrant and palpable. Both Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act and Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical
Standards for Public O cials and Employees require the
accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities. Petitioner was negligent for failing
to comply with his duty to provide a detailed list of his assets and
business interests in his SALN. He was also negligent in relying on the
family bookkeeper/accountant to ll out his SALN and in signing the
same without checking or verifying the entries therein. Petitioner's
negligence, though, is only simple and not gross, in the absence of bad
faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part, and in
consideration of the fact that his SALNs actually disclose the full
extent of his assets and the fact that he and his wife had other
business interests. cACHSE

Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which

warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public
o cer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement bene ts, and
perpetual disquali cation from reemployment in government service.
Hence, a nding that a public o cer or employee is administratively
liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence. 2 4

The above concerns Pleyto's 2001 and 2002 SALN; the present case, on the
other hand, is about his 1999, 2000 and 2001 SALNs but his omissions are identical.
While he said that his wife was a businesswoman, he also did not disclose her business
interests and nancial connections in his 1999, 2000 and 2001 SALNs. Since the facts
and the issues in the two cases are identical, the judgment in G.R. 169982, the rst
case, is conclusive upon this case.
There is "conclusiveness of judgment" when any right, fact, or matter in issue,
directly adjudicated on the merits in a previous action by a competent court or
necessarily involved in its determination, is conclusively settled by the judgment in such
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 court and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not
the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. 2 5
Thus, as in G.R. 169982, Pleyto's failure to declare his wife's business interest
and nancial connections does not constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct but
only simple negligence, warranting a penalty of forfeiture of the equivalent of six
months of his salary from his retirement benefits. 2 6
With regard to the issue concerning compliance with the Review and Compliance
Procedure provided in R.A. 6713, this Court already held in G.R. 169982 that such
procedure cannot limit the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative
investigations. R.A. 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," intended
to vest in the O ce of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. 2 7
Here, however, it was the PAGC and the OP, respectively, that conducted the
investigation and meted out the penalty of dismissal against Pleyto. Consequently, the
ruling in G.R. 169982 in this respect cannot apply.
Actually, nowhere in R.A. 6713 does it say that the Review and Compliance
Procedure is a prerequisite to the ling of administrative charges for false declarations
or concealments in one's SALN. Thus:
Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. — (a) The
designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish
procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said
statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are
in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is
not so led, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting
individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the
designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the
power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion
interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject
in each instance to the approval by a rmative vote of the majority of
the particular House concerned. cADEHI

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other

individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after
issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall
not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.
(c) The heads of other o ces shall perform the duties stated in
subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective o ces are
concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the
case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

The provision that gives an impression that the Review and Compliance
Procedure is a prerequisite to the ling of an administrative complaint is found in
paragraph (b) of Section 10 which states that "The individual to whom an opinion is
rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after
the issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject
to any sanction provided in this Act." This provision must not, however, be read in
isolation.
Paragraph (b) concerns the power of the Review and Compliance Committee to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 interpret the law governing SALNs. It authorizes the Committee to issue interpretative
opinions regarding the ling of SALNs. O cers and employees affected by such
opinions "as well as" all who are similarly situated may be allowed to correct their
SALNs according to that opinion. What the law prohibits is merely the retroactive
application of the committee's opinions. In no way did the law say that a public o cer
clearly violating R.A. 6713 must rst be noti ed of any concealed or false information in
his SALN and allowed to correct the same before he is administratively charged.
Furthermore, the only concern of the Review and Compliance Procedure, as per
paragraph (a), is to determine whether the SALNs are complete and in proper form.
This means that the SALN contains all the required data, i.e., the public o cial
answered all the questions and lled in all the blanks in his SALN form. If it nds that
required information has been omitted, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the
official who prepared the SALN and direct him to make the necessary correction.
The Court cannot accept the view that the review required of the Committee
refers to the substance of what is stated in the SALN, i.e., the truth and accuracy of the
answers stated in it, for the following reasons:
First . Assuring the truth and accuracy of the answers in the SALN is the function
of the ler's oath 2 8 that to the best of his knowledge and information, the data he
provides in it constitutes the true statements of his assets, liabilities, net worth,
business interests, and nancial connections, including those of his spouse and
unmarried children below 18 years of age. 2 9 Any falsity in the SALN makes him liable
for falsification of public documents under Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code.
Second . The law will not require the impossible, namely, that the Committee
must ascertain the truth of all the information that the public o cer or employee stated
or failed to state in his SALNs and remind him of it. The DPWH a rms this fact in its
certification below: cDTIAC

This is to certify that this Department issues a memorandum

every year reminding its o cials and employees to submit their
Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth (SALN) in compliance
with R.A. 6713. Considering that it has approximately 19,000 permanent
employees plus a variable number of casual and contractual
employees, the Department does not have the resources to review or
validate the entries in all the SALNs. O cials and employees are
assumed to be accountable for the veracity of the entries considering
that the SALNs are under oath. 3 0

Indeed, if the Committee knows the truth about the assets, liabilities, and net
worth of its department's employees, there would be no need for the law to require the
latter to file their sworn SALNs yearly.
In this case, the PAGC succeeded in discovering the business interest of Pleyto's
wife only after it subpoenaed from the Department of Trade and Industry-Bulacan
certi ed copies of her business interests there. The Heads of O ces do not have the
means to compel production of documents in the hands of other government agencies
or third persons.
The purpose of R.A. 6713 is "to promote a high standard of ethics in public
service. Public o cials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people
and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and
loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 over personal interest." 3 1 The law expects public o cials to be accountable to the
people in the matter of their integrity and competence. Thus, the Court cannot interpret
the Review and Compliance Procedure as transferring such accountability to the
Committee.
WHEREFORE , the Court GRANTS the petition but nds petitioner Salvador A.
Pleyto guilty only of simple negligence and imposes on him the penalty of forfeiture of
the equivalent of six months of his salary from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Brion, * Peralta and Bersamin, ** JJ., concur.

Footnotes
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, per
Special Order 975 dated March 21, 2011.
** Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
per raffle dated August 3, 2009.
1. Rollo, pp. 83-89.
2. Id. at 92.
3. Id. at 90.

4. Id. at 91.
5. Section 8 . Statements and Disclosure. — Public o cials and employees have an obligation
to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to
know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and nancial and business interests including
those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living
in their households.
(A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. — All public o cials
and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or
temporary workers, shall le under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of
their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their
households.

6. Section 7 . Statement of assets and liabilities. — Every public o cer, within thirty days after
the approval of this Act or after assuming o ce, and within the month of January of
every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of o ce, or upon
his resignation or separation from o ce, shall prepare and le with the o ce of the
corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an
independent o ce, with the O ce of the President, or in the case of members of the
Congress and the o cials and employees thereof, with the O ce of the Secretary of the
corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities,
including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his
personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next
preceding calendar year: Provided, That public o cers assuming o ce less than two
months before the end of the calendar year, may le their statements in the following
months of January.

7. Rollo, pp. 93-95.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 8. Id. at 96-101.

9. Id. at 108-109.
10. Id. at 124-132.
11. Id. at 133-138.
12. Id. at 139-152.
13. Section 10 . Review and Compliance Procedure. — (a) The designated Committees of both
Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to
determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete,
and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so
led, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him
to take the necessary corrective action.
(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees
of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to
render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject
in each instance to the approval by a rmative vote of the majority of the particular
House concerned.
The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a
similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in
accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.
(c) The heads of other o ces shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b)
hereof insofar as their respective o ces are concerned, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.
14. Rollo, pp. 153-162.

15. Id. at 163.

16. Id. at 164-172.
17. Id. at 173.
18. Id. at 174.
19. Id. at 175-184.

20. Id. at 185-228.

21. Id. at 60-82.
22. Id. at 32-59.
23. November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 534.

24. Id. at 586-588.

25. Abelita III v. Doria, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 220, 230.
26. Pleyto v. Philippine National Police-CIDG, supra note 23, at 595-596.
27. Id. at 593.
28. Republic Act 6713 (1989), Sec. 8.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 29. Pleyto's SALN Form, rollo, p. 113.
30. Rollo, p. 173.

31. Republic Act 6713 (1989), Sec. 2.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com