PAGC vs.

Pleyto Erika
March 23, 2011
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners, vs.
SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.
ABAD, J.
SUMMARY: PAGC, acting on an anonymous letter-complaint, conducted an investigation on DPWH USEC Pleyto. PAGC then found
that while Pleyto said in his SALNs that his wife was a businesswoman, he did not disclose her business interests and financial
connections. PAGC then charged Pleyto before the OP for violation of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials and the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. OP approved PGACs recommendation and found Pleyto guilty as charged, ordering his dismissal with forfeiture
of all benefits. CA reversed. SC granted PGACs petition but ordered only the forfeiture of 6 months worth of salary from his retirement
benefits. SC treated as conclusive a previous SC decision also concerning Pleytos SALNs.
DOCTRINE/HELD: Both Sec 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Sec 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees require the accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and
liabilities. Pleyto 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 fill out his SALN and in signing the same without
checking or verifying the entries therein. Pleytos 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. (not sure if ito ba yung doctrine o yung sa issue #2 :/ )
FACTS:

Dec 19, 2002: the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous letter-complaint from alleged
employees of DPWH accusing DPWH Undersecretary Salvador A. Pleyto of extortion, illicit affairs, and manipulation of DPWH
projects.

In the course of the PAGCs 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.

Apr 29, 2003: PAGC charged Pleyto before the Office of the President for violation of Sec 8 of RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Sec 7 of R.A. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)

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.
o

he attributed the mistake to the fact that his SALNs were merely prepared by his wifes bookkeeper.

PAGC (July 10, 2003): found Pleyto guilty as charged and recommended to the OP his dismissal with forfeiture of all
government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service.

OP (Jan 29, 2004): approved the recommendation

Pleyto filed an Urgent MR:

1) he should first be allowed to avail of the review and compliance procedure in Sec 10 1 of R.A. 6713 (Code of
Conduct) before he is administratively charged;

2) he indicated "NONE" in the column for financial and business interests because he and his wife had no business
interests related to DPWH; and

3) his failure to indicate his wifes business interests is not punishable under R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft Act)

PAGCs Comment (Mar 2, 2004): Pleytos reliance on the Review and Complicance Procedure was unavailing because the
mechanism had not yet been established and, in any case, his SALN was a sworn statement, the contents of which were
beyond the corrective guidance of the DPWH Secretary. Furthermore, his failure to declare his wife's business interests and
financial connections was highly irregular and was a form of dishonesty.

Mar 11, 2005: Executive Sec Ermita ordered PAGC to conduct a reinvestigation of Pleytos case

PAGC queried the DTI of Region 3Bulacan regarding the businesses registered in the name of Miguela Pleyto, his wife.
o

PAGC found that she operated the ff. businesses: 1) R.S. Pawnshop, registered since May 19, 1993; 2) M. Pleyto
Piggery and Poultry Farm, registered since Dec 29, 1998; 3) R.S. PawnshopPulong Buhangin Branch, registered
since July 24, 2000; and 4) RSP Laundry and Dry Cleaning, registered since July 24, 2001

PAGC also inquired with the DPWH regarding their Review and Compliance procedure. The DPWH said that, they
merely reminded their officials of the need for them to comply with R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) by filing 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.

Feb 21, 2006: PAGC maintained its finding and recommendation respecting Pleyto.

OP (Aug 29, 2006): denied Pleytos MR

CA (Dec 29, 2006): granted Pleytos petition and permanently enjoined the PAGC and the OP from implementing their
decisions.

ISSUE #1: W/N CA erred in not finding Pleytos failure to indicate his spouses business interests in his SALNs a violation of Sec 8 of
R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) (YES, but Pleyto is guilty only of simple negligence.)
RATIO #1:
PLEYTOS PREVIOUS SALN CASE

1 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 filed, 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 affirmative 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 offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices 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.

This is the 2nd time Pleytos SALNs are before the SC. The first time was in Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG where PNP-CIDG filed on July
28, 2003 administrative charges against Pleyto with the Ombudsman for violating, among others, Sec 8 of R.A. 6713 (Code of
Conduct) in that he failed to disclose in his 2001 and 2002 SALNs his wifes business interests and financial connections.

June 28, 2004: Ombudsman ordered Pleyto dismissed from the service. He appealed to the CA but the latter dismissed his
petition and MR. Pleyto then assailed the CAs ruling before the SC raising, among others, the ff. issues: 1) W/N Pleyto
violated Sec 8(a) of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct); and 2) W/N Pleytos reliance on the Review and Compliance Procedure in
the law was unwarranted.

SC found that Pleytos failure to disclose his wifes business interests and financial connections constituted simple
negligence, not gross misconduct or dishonesty. Thus:

SC said in the previous case: Neither can Pleytos failure to answer the question, "Do you have any business interest and
other financial 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 Pleytos 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 wifes occupation
would be inconsistent with the intention to conceal his and his wifes business interests. That Pleyto 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, Pleyto 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 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. Both Sec 7 of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Sec 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees require the accomplishment and submission of a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and
liabilities. Pleyto 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 fill out his SALN and in
signing the same without checking or verifying the entries therein. Pleytos 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.

Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public
officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits,
and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service. Hence, a finding that a public officer or employee is
administratively liable for such charges must be supported by substantial evidence.

OMISSIONS IDENTICAL

The above concerns Pleytos 2001 and 2002 SALN; the present case 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
financial connections in his 1999, 2000 and 2001 SALNs. Since the facts and the issues in the two cases are identical,
the judgment in the first 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 court and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or
subject matter of the 2 actions is the same.

Thus, as in the first case, Pleytos failure to declare his wifes business interest and financial connections does not
constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct but only simple negligence, warranting a penalty of forfeiture of the
equivalent of 6 months of his salary from his retirement benefits.

ISSUE #2: W/N CA erred in finding that under the Review and Compliance Procedure, Pleyto should have first been allowed to correct
the error in his SALNs before being charged for violation of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) (YES)
RATIO #2:

SC already held in the first case that such procedure cannot limit the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative
investigations. R.A. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) intended to vest in the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative
disciplinary authority. 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 the first case in this respect cannot apply.

Nowhere in R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) does it say that the Review and Compliance Procedure is a prerequisite to the filing
of administrative charges for false declarations or concealments in ones SALN2.

The provision that gives an impression that the Review and Compliance Procedure is a prerequisite to the filing of an
administrative complaint is found in par (b) of Sec 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.

Par. (b) concerns the power of the Review and Compliance Committee to interpret the law governing SALNs. It authorizes the
Committee to issue interpretative opinions regarding the filing of SALNs. Officers 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 committees opinions. In no way did the law say that a public officer clearly violating
R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct) must first be notified of any concealed or false information in his SALN and allowed to correct
the same before he is administratively charged.

The only concern of the Review and Compliance Procedure, as per par. (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 official answered all the questions
and filled in all the blanks in his SALN form. If it finds 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.

SC 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 ff reasons:

(1) Assuring the truth and accuracy of the answers in the SALN is the function of the filers oath 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 financial connections, including those of his spouse and unmarried children below 18
years of age. Any falsity in the SALN makes him liable for falsification of public documents under Art 172 of the RPC

(2) The law will not require the impossible, namely, that the Committee must ascertain the truth of all the information
that the public officer or employee stated or failed to state in his SALNs and remind him of it. The DPWH affirms this
fact in its certification3

Indeed, if the Committee knows the truth about the assets, liabilities, and net worth of its departments employees, there would
be no need for the law to require the latter to file their sworn SALNs yearly.

2 See previous footnote for the provision

PAGC succeeded in discovering the business interest of Pleytos wife only after it subpoenaed from the DTIBulacan certified
copies of her business interests there. The Heads of Offices 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 (Code of Conduct) is "to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials 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 over personal
interest." The law expects public officials 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.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted, but SC finds Pleyto guilty only of simple negligence and imposes on him the penalty of forfeiture of the
equivalent of 6 months of his salary from his retirement benefits.