RA 6713#Approved 

February 20, 1989

Republic Act No. 6713             #February 20, 1989#

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES, TO UPHOLD THE TIME-HONORED PRINCIPLE OF PUBLIC OFFICE BEING A PUBLIC
TRUST, GRANTING INCENTIVES AND REWARDS FOR EXEMPLARY SERVICE, ENUMERATING
PROHIBITED ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(A) Every public official and employee shall observe the following as standards of
personal conduct in the discharge and execution of official duties:

(a) Commitment to public interest. –

public interest over and above personal interest
resources and powers employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and
economically

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(b) Professionalism. –
highest degree of excellence,
professionalism,
intelligence and
skill.
utmost devotion and
dedication to duty.
endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers
of undue patronage.

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(c) Justness and sincerity. –
true to the people at all times.
justness and sincerity
not discriminate
respect the rights of others,
refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy,
public order, public safety and public interest
undue favors on account of their office

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(d) Political neutrality. –
service to everyone without unfair discrimination and regardless of party
affiliation or preference.

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(e) Responsiveness to the public. –
prompt, courteous, and adequate service
information of their policies and procedures in clear and understandable language
openness of information, public consultations and hearings
encourage suggestions,
simplify and systematize policy, rules and procedures,
avoid red tape
understanding and appreciation of the socio-economic conditions prevailing in the
country

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(f) Nationalism and patriotism. –
loyal to the Republic and to the Filipino people
use of locally produced goods, resources and technology
appreciation and pride of country and people
maintain and defend Philippine sovereignty against foreign intrusion.

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(g) Commitment to democracy. –
democratic way of life and values
principle of public accountability
supremacy of civilian authority over the military
uphold the Constitution
loyalty to country above loyalty to persons or party

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(h) Simple living. –
modest lives appropriate to their positions and income
extravagant or ostentatious display of wealth

Section 4. Norms of Conduct of Public Officials and Employees. -

(B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote
(1) observance of these standards
merit increases for outstanding observance of ethical standards;
(2) continuing research and experimentation
positive motivation

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

The Facts
Petitioner is a government employee, being a department head of the Population
Commission with office at the Provincial Capitol, Trece Martirez City, Cavite.
Sometime in March 2001, petitioner agreed to help her friend, respondent Julia A.
Restrivera, to have the latter’s land located in Carmona, Cavite, registered under
the Torrens System. Petitioner said that the expenses would reach ₱150,000 and
accepted ₱50,000 from respondent to cover the initial expenses for the titling of
respondent’s land.
Petitioner failed to accomplish her task because it was found out that the land is
government property.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

The Case
When petitioner failed to return the ₱50,000, respondent sued her for ESTAFA.
Respondent also filed an administrative complaint for GRAVE MISCONDUCT or CONDUCT
UNBECOMING A PUBLIC OFFICER against petitioner before the Office of the Ombudsman.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

The Case
Ombudsman
guilty of violating Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713
suspended her from office for six months without pay
failed to abide by the standard set in Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 and deprived
the government of the benefit of committed service when she embarked on her private
interest to help respondent secure a certificate of title over the latter’s land
Motion for reconsideration
reduced the penalty to three months suspension without pay
Petitioner’s acceptance of respondent’s payment created a perception that
petitioner is a fixer
fell short of the standard of personal conduct required by Section 4(b) of R.A. No.
6713 that public officials shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their
roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage
SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011
The Case
Court of Appeals
affirmed the Ombudsman’s Order
The Ombudsman has jurisdiction even if the act complained of is a private matter
Petitioner violated the norms of conduct required of her as a public officer when
she demanded and received the amount of ₱50,000 on the representation that she can
secure a title to respondent’s property and for failing to return the amount
Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 requires petitioner to perform and discharge her
duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill, and to endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of her role as a dispenser
and peddler of undue patronage

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

The Case

Supreme Court
appeals the Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolutiondenying her motion
for reconsideration. 

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Issues:

1. Jurisdiction of the Ombudsman over a case involving a private dealing by a

government employee or where the act complained of is not related to the
performance of official duty

2. Grave abuse of discretion in finding petitioner administratively liable despite

the dismissal of the estafa case

3. Grave abuse of discretion in not imposing a lower penalty in view of mitigating

circumstances

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

First Issue

Ombudsman has jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint against petitioner although

the act complained of involves a private deal between them.(See Santos v. Rasalan,
G.R. No. 155749, February 8, 2007, 515 SCRA 97, 102) 

Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that the Ombudsman can

investigate on its own or on complaint by any person any act or omission of any
public official or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, or improper.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

First Issue

Under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance,
misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during
his/her tenure.

Section 19  of R.A. No. 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all
complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unfair or
irregular.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

First Issue

Thus, even if the complaint concerns an act of the public official or employee
which is not service-connected, the case is within the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman. The law does not qualify the nature of the illegal act or omission of
the public official or employee that the Ombudsman may investigate. It does not
require that the act or omission be related to or be connected with or arise from
the performance of official duty. Since the law does not distinguish, neither
should we

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Second issue

It is wrong for petitioner to say that since the estafa case against her was
dismissed, she cannot be found administratively liable.

It is settled that administrative cases may proceed independently of criminal

proceedings, and may continue despite the dismissal of the criminal charges.17

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Petitioner may not be penalized for violation of Section 4 (A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713

Failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4(A)(b) of R.A. No. 6713, in
relation to its implementing rules, is not a ground for disciplinary action
(Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman),20

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713

commands that "public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their
duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and
skill."
merely enunciates "professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to be observed by
public servants, in addition to commitment to public interest, justness and
sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and
patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713

Rule V of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713 mandates the grant of incentives
and rewards to officials and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and
conduct based on their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4.

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

The Implementing Rules does not provide that they will have to be sanctioned for
failure to observe these norms of conduct.

Rule X of the Implementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrative disciplinary

action only acts "declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code." 

twenty three (23) acts or omissions as grounds for administrative disciplinary

action.

Failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4(b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not
one of them. 

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Grave Misconduct?
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.
Grave Misconduct
corruption
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Grave misconduct because there was substantial evidence of voluntary disregard of
established rules in the procurement of supplies as well as of manifest intent to
disregard said rules.(Roque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179245, July 23, 2008,
559 SCRA 660, 675)

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Complicity in the transgression of a regulation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue
constitutes simple misconduct only as there was failure to establish flagrancy in
respondent’s act for her to be held liable of gross misconduct. (Bureau of Internal
Revenue v. Organo, G.R. No. 149549, February 26, 2004, 424 SCRA 9, 17)

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Dismissed a complaint for knowingly rendering an unjust order, gross ignorance of
the law, and grave misconduct, since the complainant did not even indicate the
particular acts of the judge which were allegedly violative of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. (Diomampo v. Alpajora, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1880, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA
534, 539-540)

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Respondent failed to prove
petitioner’s violation of an established and definite rule of action or unlawful
behavior or gross negligence, and
any of the aggravating elements of corruption, willful intent to violate a law or
to disregard established rules on the part of petitioner

Petitioner’s alleged failure to observe the mandate that public office is a public
trust when petitioner allegedly meddled in an affair that belongs to another agency
is a serious but unproven accusation

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

For reneging on her promise to return aforesaid amount, petitioner is guilty of
CONDUCT UNBECOMING A PUBLIC OFFICER.
Respondents therein were guilty of conduct unbecoming of government employees when
they reneged on their promise to have pertinent documents notarized and submitted
to the Government Service Insurance System after the complainant’s rights over the
subject property were transferred to the sister of one of the respondents. (Joson
v. Macapagal,  A.M. No. P-02-1591, June 21, 2002, 383 SCRA 403, 406-407)
Unbecoming conduct means improper performance and applies to a broader range of
transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or
logical procedure or prescribed method. (Assistant Special Prosecutor III Rohermia
J. Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Justices Gregory S. Ong, et al., A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J,
August 24, 2010, p. 22)

SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011

Any act that falls short of the exacting standards for public office shall not be
countenanced.(Pablejan v. Calleja, A.M. No. P-06-2102, January 24, 2006, 479 SCRA
562, 569) 
SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at
all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility,
integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead
modest lives. (1987 Constitution)
SAMSON VS RESTRIVERA#G.R. No. 178454               March 28, 2011
SET ASIDE 
Decision of the Court of Appeals and its Resolution denying the Motion for
Reconsideration
Decision and Order of the Ombudsman
ENTER a new judgment finding petitioner GUILTY of CONDUCT UNBECOMING A PUBLIC
OFFICER and impose upon her a FINE of ₱15,000.00 to be paid at the Office of the
Ombudsman within five (5) days from finality of this Decision and to return the
Php50,000.00
Mitigating circumstance petitioner’s 37 years of public service and the fact that
this is the first charge against her

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees

(a) Act promptly on letters and requests.
fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or
other means of communications sent by the public
Amended by RA 11032 (Ease of Doing Business and Efficient Government Service
Delivery Act of 2018 )
three (3) working days in the case of simple transactions
seven (7) working days in the case of complex transactions
20 working days for transactions that pose danger to public health, public safety,
public morals, public policy, and highly technical application
reply must contain the action taken on the request.

BUENO VS OMBUDSMAN#G.R. No. 191712               September 17, 2014

Records showed that despite Ranchez’s written and verbal requests made between
September and November 2004 in connection with his pending petition for
review/reconsideration on his disqualification on the basis of the subject
memoranda and its approval by the NEA Board of Administrators, petitioners did not
respond to his queries or at the very least inform him that as early as May 27,
2004, the NEA Board of Administrators had already approved the subject memoranda.
Notably, Ranchez had invoked the OGCC’s Opinion declaring the subject memoranda to
have no binding force and effect on electric cooperatives which is contrary to
petitioner Bueno’s stance that the said regulations remain valid until declared
illegal by a competent court. Moreover, despite constant follow ups, Ranchez was
not informed as to when the NEA Board of Administrators will take up or its action
on his petition for reconsideration. In any event, petitioners clearly failed to
disclose crucial information sought by Ranchez within fifteen working days, in
violation of Section 5(a) of RA 6713.

BUENO VS OMBUDSMAN#G.R. No. 191712               September 17, 2014

Petitioners violated the above mandate and presented no proof whatsoever that they
made a written reply to Ranchez’s requests within the prescribed period of fifteen
(15) days. This constituted neglect of duty which cannot be countenanced. (Lim, Jr.
v. Judge Magallanes, 548 Phil. 566, 575 (2007).  
Petitioners should be reminded that as government officials and employees they are
expected to adhere to the standards set by law in the discharge of their official
duties, among others, commitment to public service, professionalism, justness and
sincerity and responsiveness to the public.(Sec. 4 (a), (b), (c), and (e), RA 6713)

BUENO VS OMBUDSMAN#G.R. No. 191712               September 17, 2014

LIGHT OFFENSE
Penalty REPRIMAND (First Offense)
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees
(b) Submit annual performance reports
forty-five (45) working days from the end of the year
performance report of the agency or office or corporation concerned
open and available to the public within regular office hours

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously
completed within a reasonable time
not more than three (3) signatories therein
in the absence of duly authorized signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer
in charge shall sign for and in their behalf.

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees

(c) Process documents and papers expeditiously
completed within a reasonable time
not more than three (3) signatories therein
in the absence of duly authorized signatories, the official next-in-rank or officer
in charge shall sign for and in their behalf.

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees

(d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions
attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices
act promptly and expeditiously

Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees

(e) Make documents accessible to the public
readily available for inspection
RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)

Section 7. #Prohibited Acts and Transactions

(a) Financial and material interest
directly or indirectly, have any financial or material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.

Section 7. #Prohibited Acts and Transactions

(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto
(1) Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee, consultant,
counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly allowed by law;
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict with their official functions; or
(3) Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which has a
regular or pending official transaction with their office

NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION VS CSC#G.R. No. 149497              

January 25, 2010
The Supreme Court did not find the designation of NEA personnel to be violative of
Section 7 (b) of RA No. 6713 regarding outside employment by a public officer and
employee, considering that the designation of petitioner's personnel as Acting
General Manager and Project Supervisor of the electric cooperatives was by virtue
of Section 5 (a)(6) of PD No. 269 as amended; thus, such designation was part of
petitioner's exercise of its power of supervision and control over the electric
cooperatives.

POSADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN#G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000         July 17, 2013

ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the Chancellor and a faculty member of the
University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO PASCUAL DAYCO, being then
the Vice-Chancellor of the said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of
the Chancellor, while in the performance and taking advantage of their official and
administrative functions, and conspiring and confederating with and mutually
helping each other, give unwarranted benefits, privilege or advantage to accused
POSADAS, when accused DAYCO appointed or designated accused POSADAS as a Project
Director of the lone project, Institutionalization of the Management of Technology
at U.P. Diliman, of the Technology Management Center (TMC) of the Office of the
Chancellor, U.P. Diliman, which enabled or caused the disbursement and payment of
monthly salary of ₱30,000.00 of accused POSADAS, duly received by the latter with
accused POSADAS also receiving his salaries as Chancellor and faculty member of
U.P. Diliman during this period, and both accused knowing fully well that the
appointment of accused POSADAS was beyond the power or authority of accused DAYCO
as an OIC and likewise violative of the law, rules and regulations against multiple
positions, double compensation and retroactivity of appointment, thereby causing
undue injury to the Government in the amount of PESOS: THREE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND
(₱360,000.00), to the damage and prejudice of the Government

POSADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN#G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000         July 17, 2013

ROGER DELA ROSA POSADAS, being then the Chancellor and a faculty member of the
University of the Philippines-Diliman Campus, and ROLANDO PASCUAL DAYCO, being then
the ViceChancellor of the said university and Officer-In-Charge of the Office of
the Chancellor while in the performance and taking advantage of their official and
administrative functions, and conspiring and confederating with and mutually
helping each other engage in the unauthorized private practice of accused POSADAS’s
profession as a technology manager, when accused DAYCO appointed or designated
accused POSADAS as a consultant to the project, Institutionalization of the
Management of Technology at U.P. Diliman, of the Technology Management Center (TMC)
of the Office of the Chancellor, U.P. Diliman, which enabled or caused the
disbursement and payment of consultancy fees in the amount of ₱100,000.00 to
accused POSADAS, duly received by the latter, with respondent POSADAS also
receiving his salaries as Chancellor and faculty member of U.P. Diliman, and both
accused knowing fully well that the appointment to and acceptance of the position
of consultant by respondent POSADAS was without authority from the latter’s
superior(s) or the U.P. Board of Regents, to the damage and prejudice of the
Government service.

POSADA VS SANDIGANBAYAN#G.R. Nos. 168951 & 169000         July 17, 2013

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of RA 3019 and Section
7(b) of RA 6713
Penalties :
For violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019
indeterminate penalty of nine (9) years and one day as minimum and twelve (12)
years as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from
public office
jointly and severally indemnify the Government of the Republic of the Philippines
the amount of THREE HUNDRED THIRTY SIX THOUSAND PESOS (₱336,000.00).
For violation of Section 7(b) of RA 6713
maximum penalty of five (5) years and disqualification to hold public office.

Section 7. #Prohibited Acts and Transactions

These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after
resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except in the case of
subparagraph (b) (2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in
which case the one-year prohibition shall likewise apply.

Section 7. #Prohibited Acts and Transactions

(c) Disclosure and/or misuse of confidential information.
officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the
public, either:
(1) To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
(2) To prejudice the public interest.

Section 7. #Prohibited Acts and Transactions

(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts
directly or indirectly
any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from
any person
in the course of their official duties or
in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may
be affected by the functions of their office

CABARON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN#G.R. No. 156981               October 5, 2009

ARTURO C. CABARON, a public officer, being an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of
Cebu in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to office, taking
advantage of his public functions, conniving, confederating and mutually helping
with accused BRIGIDA Y. CABARON, his wife and a private individual, with deliberate
intent, with intent of gain and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously solicit/demand from one Richter G. Pacifico, mother of
Abraham Pacifico, Jr., who have pending cases before the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor for preliminary investigation the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (₱50,000.00)
PESOS, Philippine Currency in consideration for the consolidation and handling by
him of the case entitled "Ohyeen Alesna vs. Abraham Pacifico, Jr.," for Rape, which
is assigned to Provincial Prosecutor Rodolfo Go, with another criminal case
entitled "Abraham Pacifico, Jr. vs. Alvin Alesna," for Frustrated Murder, which is
handled by accused Arturo C. Cabaron, and the giving of a lawyer to defend Abraham
Pacifico, Jr. who bears similar family name with the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu,
in order that Abraham Pacifico, Jr. can get a favorable Resolution in the above-
mentioned cases

CABARON VS. SANDIGANBAYAN#G.R. No. 156981               October 5, 2009

ARTURO C. CABARON and BRIGIDA CABARON GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime
of Violation of Sec. 7(d) R.A. 6713
imprisonment for TWO (2) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY
pay the costs
solidarily liable to Richter Pacifico in the amount of P30,000 as moral damages

Section 8. Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure

All public officials and employees, except
those who serve in an honorary capacity
laborers and casual or temporary workers
file 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.

Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure

Contents
(a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current
fair market value;
(b) personal property and acquisition cost;
(c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds,
and the like;
(d) liabilities, and;
(e) all business interests and financial connections
Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure
WHEN TO FILE
(a) within thirty (30) days after assumption of office;
(b) on or before April 30, of every year thereafter; and
(c) within thirty (30) days after separation from the service.

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

The Facts
Petitioner joined the government service as a casual clerk for the Municipal
Treasurer of Kawit, Cavite sometime in 1968, and had held various posts until she
was appointed as the Pasay City Treasurer on May 19, 1989, with a gross monthly
salary of ₱28,722.00. At the time material to the complaints, petitioner was
concurrently holding the position of Officer-in- Charge, Regional Director of the
Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) in Cebu City.

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Two (2) separate complaints were filed against petitioner by the Department of
Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) and the Field Investigation
Office (FIO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman; respondents) for averred
violations6 of Sections 7 and 8 of RA 3019,7 Section 8 (A) of RA 6713,8 Section 2
of RA 1379,9 Article 18310 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and Executive Order No.
(EO) 611 dated March 12, 1986,12 constituting Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, arising out of her failure
to disclose the true and detailed statement of her assets, liabilities, and net
worth, business interests, and financial connections, and those of her spouse in
her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). 13 

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

(1) failed to declare 
(a) a 1993 Mitsubishi Galant sedan with Plate No. TBH-238 (Galant sedan) registered
under the name of her late husband with an estimated value of ₱250,000.00; 
(b) her stock subscription in KEI Realty and Development Corp. (KEI) valued at
₱1,500,000.00 with a total paid up amount of ₱800,000.00; 14 and
(c) several real properties in Cavite 15 (which had been the subject of a previous
administrative complaint against her that had been dismissed 16 ); and 
(2) traveled multiple times abroad without securing a travel authority, which cast
doubt on her real net worth and actual source of income considering her modest
salary. 17

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

For her part, petitioner insisted that she acquired her properties through lawful
means, and maintained that she was not totally dependent on her salary to finance
the said acquisitions. 18 She alleged that: 
(a) her late husband purchased the Galant sedan out of his personal money, hence,
the same did not form part of their conjugal properties; 19 
(b) she had already divested her interest in KEI in 1998, along with her husband,
but her husband and children reacquired their respective shares sometime in
2003;20 and
(c) her travels were sponsored by the government or by her relatives abroad.21

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

The Ombudsman Ruling
guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713
imposed the penalty of Dismissal, and its accessory penalties, without prejudice to
criminal prosecution. 23
petitioner committed perjury under Article 183 of the RPC when she failed to
declare in her SALNs for 1997 to 2003 the Galant sedan, and her business interest
in KEI in her 1997 SALN, which is sufficient basis to hold her liable for
Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. 24 
liable for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 for her failure to disclose the said
assets despite the legal obligation to do so.25
respondents to have failed to substantiate the charges that: 
(a) petitioner's numerous foreign travels were indicia of her acquisition of
unlawful wealth;26 and
(b) KEI was put up as a subterfuge for petitioner's ill-gotten wealth.27
motion for reconsideration denied

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition
the Ombudsman's ruling was sufficiently supported by substantial evidence
petitioner's failure to declare all her assets and business interests constituted
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and a violation of Section 8 (A) of RA 6713
gave no credence to her defense of good faith considering that she knew of the said
assets and gave no justification for their exclusion in her SALNs
her resignation from the government service did not render the Ombudsman ruling
moot. 33
Motion for reconsideration denied
Petition 1 for review on certiorari 
assailing the Decision and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Issue
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the Joint Decision of the Ombudsman
finding petitioner liable for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and violation of
Section 8 (A) of RA 6713, and imposing on her the corresponding penalties.

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

The Court's Ruling
The petition is partly meritorious.
The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined in no less than the 1987
Constitution35 in order to promote transparency in the civil service, and operates
as a deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through
unlawful means. 36 By mandate of law, i.e., RA 6713, it behooves every government
official or employee to accomplish and submit a sworn statement completely
disclosing his or her assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business
interests, including those of his/her spouse and unmarried children under eighteen
(18) years of age living in their households,37 in order to suppress any
questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-
disclosure of such matters

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Records reveal that the element of intent to commit a wrong required under both the
administrative offenses of Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct39 are lacking to warrant
petitioner's dismissal from service.
Dishonesty is committed when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of
any material fact, practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud in
order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is
understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, betray or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; and the lack of fairness and straightforwardness. 40

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

On the other hand, misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of
a rule of law or standard of behavior.
To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public
officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements
of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an
established rule must be manifest. 41 Without any of these elements, the
transgression of an established rule is properly characterized as simple misconduct
only. 42 Most importantly, without a nexus between the act complained of and the
discharge of duty, the charge of grave misconduct shall necessarily fail.43

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Indeed, the failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubt the integrity of the
public officer or employee, and would normally amount to dishonesty.1âwphi1 It
should be emphasized, however, that mere non-declaration of the required data in
the SALN does not automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires
malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements. In addition, a
public officer or employee becomes susceptible to dishonesty only when such non-
declaration results in the accumulated wealth becoming manifestly disproportionate
to his/her income, and income from other sources, and he/she fails to properly
account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions.44

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Here, the Court finds that there is no substantial evidence of intent to commit a
wrong, or to deceive the authorities, and conceal the other properties in
petitioner's and her husband's names. Petitioner's failure to disclose in her 1997
SALN her business interest in KEI is not a sufficient badge of dishonesty in the
absence of bad faith, or any malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false
statements. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence. It
contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or some
motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior purposes.45
Notably, petitioner readily admitted in her Counter-Affidavit her business interest
in KEI in 1997, 46 which belied any malicious intent to conceal. While concededly,
the omission would increase her net worth for the year 1997, the Court observes
that the Ombudsman declared respondent's evidence insufficient to warrant a finding
that petitioner had any unexplained wealth.47 On the contrary, it found that her
children have the financial capacity to put up KEI. 48

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

It should be emphasized that the laws on SALN aim to curtail the acquisition of
unexplained wealth. Thus, in several cases 49 where the source of the undisclosed
wealth was properly accounted for, the Court deemed the same an "explained wealth"
which the law does not penalize. Consequently, absent any intent to commit a wrong,
and having accounted for the source of the "undisclosed wealth," as in this case,
petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty of the charge of Dishonesty; but at the most,
of mere negligence for having failed to accomplish her SALN properly and
accurately.

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

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 officials, 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 flagrant and palpable. 50 An act done in good faith, which
constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives and/or
purposes,51 as in the present case, is merely Simple Negligence

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

In the same vein, petitioner's failure to declare the Galant sedan in her SALNs
from 1997 to 2003 stemmed from the fact that the same was registered in her
husband's name, and purportedly purchased out of his personal money.52 While such
bare allegation is not enough to overthrow the presumption that the car was
conjugal, neither is there sufficient showing that petitioner was motivated by bad
faith in not disclosing the same. In fact, the Ombudsman conceded that petitioner's
husband was financially capable of purchasing the car, 53 negating any "unexplained
wealth" to warrant petitioner's dismissal due to Dishonesty

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Likewise, the charge of Grave Misconduct against petitioner must fail. Verily, the
omission to include the subject properties in petitioner's SALNs, by itself, does
not amount to Grave Misconduct, in the absence of showing that such omission had,
in some way, hindered the rendition of sound public service for there is no direct
relation or connection between the two. 54

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

Accordingly, the Court finds no reason to hold petitioner liable for the charges of
Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct, but declares her guilty, instead, of Simple
Negligence in accomplishing her SALN. Simple
Negligence is akin to Simple Neglect of Duty,55 which is a less grave offense
punishable with suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months, for the first offense. 56 Since the penalty of suspension can no longer be
imposed on account of petitioner's resignation,57 and considering that she readily
admitted her omissions which do not appear to have been attended by any bad faith
or fraudulent intent, 58 the Court finds that the penalty of fine in the amount
equivalent to one (1) month and one (1) day59 of petitioner's last salary is
reasonable and just under the premises.

DAPLAS vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE#G.R. No. 221153, April 17, 2017

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLYGRANTED. The assailed Decision dated August 27,
2014 and the Resolution dated October 22, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
SP No. 122851 are hereby SET ASIDE. A new one is ENTERED finding petitioner
Concepcion C. Daplas GUILTY of SIMPLENEGLIGENCE in accomplishing her Statements of
Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth for the years 1997 to 2003, and is meted a fine
in the amount equivalent to one (1) month and one (1) day of her last salary.

PAGC VS PLEYTO#G.R. No. 176058               March 23, 2011

On December 19, 2002 the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an
anonymous letter-complaint1 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, 2000, and
2001 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 and Section 7 of R.A.
30196 or "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."

PAGC VS PLEYTO#G.R. No. 176058               March 23, 2011

guilty only of simple negligence
penalty of forfeiture of the equivalent of six months of his salary from his
retirement benefits

Section 9. Divestment
A public official or employee shall avoid conflicts of interest at all times. When
a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position in any private
business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his assumption of office and/or
divest himself of his shareholdings or interest within sixty (60) days from such
assumption.