Kung hindi nasasaad sa batas o kontrata ang klase ng sipag na kailangan maisagawa sa pagsasakatuparan ng obligasyon, iyong sipag na inaasahan sa mabuting padre de pamilya ang kailangang isagawa.ilangang isagawa.
Illustrative case by: kristine mariano
PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION (PAGC) and THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, Petitioners,
vs.
SALVADOR A. PLEYTO, Respondent.
Facts and the Case
On December 19, 2002 the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) received an anonymous letter-complaint1from 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, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" and Section 7 of R.A. 3019 or "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 Further, he attributed the mistake to the fact that his SALNs were merely prepared by his wife’s bookkeeper.
On July 10, 2003 PAGC 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.
On January 29, 2004 the OP approved the recommendation.From this, Pleyto filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsiderationclaiming that: 1) he should first be allowed to avail of the review and compliance procedure in Section 10 of R.A. 6713 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 wife’s business interests is not punishable under R.A. 3019.
On March 2, 2004 PAGC filed its comment, contending that Pleyto’s 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.
On March 11, 2005 Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita ordered PAGC to conduct a reinvestigation of Pleyto’s case. 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.
The 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 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.
On February 21, 2006 the PAGC maintained its finding and recommendation respecting Pleyto.On August 29, 2006 the OP denied Pleyto’s Motion for Reconsideration. Pleyto raised the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) which on December 29, 2006 granted Pleyto’s petition and permanently enjoined the PAGC and the OP from implementing their decisions.This prompted the latter offices to come to this Court on a petition for review.
Issues Presented
1. Whether or not the CA erred in not finding 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 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.
The Court’s Rulings
This is the second time Pleyto’s SALNs are before this Court. The first time was in G.R. 169982, Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG).23 In that case, the PNP-CIDG filed on July 28, 2003 administrative charges against Pleyto with the Office 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 Office 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 filed. 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 financial connections constituted simple negligence, not gross misconduct
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento