Lawyerly

GR No. 204105

2015-10-14

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Misconduct is defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[39] It becomes grave misconduct when it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[40] A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.[41] The charge of gross misconduct is a serious charge that warrants the removal or dismissal of a public officer or employee from service together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.[42]

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

the proper mode of appeal. Rule 43 governs appeals to the CA from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies.[24] Reliance by the CA on Sec. 14 in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770 to support its position as to which court a party may repair to to assail the OMB's decision in disciplinary cases is misinformed. As has been held, those portions of said Sec. 27 and any other provisions

GR No. 197307

2014-02-26

FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

VELASCO JR., J.

intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements; otherwise, the government employee may only liable for negligence, not for dishonesty.[47] In addition, only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income of the public officer/employee and income from other sources, and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions, does he or she become susceptible to dishonesty.[48] Substantial evidence

GR No. 181598

2013-03-06

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ARNEL A. BERNARDO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Neither can petitioner's 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 house hold?" 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.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR No. 175991

2011-08-31

JOSE R. CATACUTAN v. PEOPLE

DEL CASTILLO, J.

While petitioner may have laudable objectives in refusing the implementation of private complainants' valid appointments, the Court fails to see how he can still claim good faith when no less than the higher authorities have already sustained the validity of the subject appointments and have ordered him to proceed with the implementation. "It is well to remember that good intentions do not win cases, evidence does."[34]

AM No. RTJ-11-2261

2011-07-26

ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ v. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ

PEREZ, J.

In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, [44] for negligence in accomplishing his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 2002, this Court held: xxx And since petitioner is already compulsorily retired, he can no longer serve his suspension; yet, this Court can still order, in lieu of such penalty, the forfeiture of the amount equivalent to petitioner's salary for six months from his retirement benefits. [45] (Emphasis supplied.)

GR Nos. 190580-81

2011-02-21

LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

ABAD, J.

Carabeo claims that his head office, the DOF, should have alerted him on the deficiency in his SALN and given him the chance to correct the same before any charge is filed against him in connection with the same. But, the Sandiganbayan, citing Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG),[4] held that the review of the SALN by the head of office is irrelevant and cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an independent investigation for criminal violations committed by the public official or employee.

GR No. 185685

2011-01-31

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

MENDOZA, J.

On February 21, 2008, the CA rendered the challenged decision. Citing Pleyto v. Philippine National Police (PNP)-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG),[26] the CA opined that in charges of dishonesty "intention is an important element in its commission."[27] The CA ruled that Racho "never denied the existence of the bank accounts. Instead, he undertook to explain that those were not wholly owned by him and endeavored to secure and submit documentary evidence to buttress explanation. Judging from his conduct, there is want of intent to conceal information. Intent, as held in the Pleyto case, is essential to constitute dishonesty and without the intent to commit a wrong, the public officer is not dishonest, albeit he is adjudged to be negligent."[28]

GR No. 185685

2011-01-31

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

MENDOZA, J.

Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.[51] It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[52] It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[53] Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats dishonesty as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.[54]

GR No. 185685

2011-01-31

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO

MENDOZA, J.

For these reasons, the Court is of the view that Pleyto v. Philippine National Police (PNP)-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)[55] which the CA cited as basis to exculpate Racho of dishonesty, is not applicable in this case. In the Pleyto case, the Court recognized Pleyto's candid admission of his failure to properly and completely fill out his SALN, his vigorous effort to clarify the entries and provide the necessary information and supporting documents to show how he and his wife acquired their properties.[56] The Court found substantial evidence that Pleyto and his wife had lawful sources of income other than Pleyto's salary as a government official which allowed them to purchase several real properties in their names and travel abroad.[57]

GR No. 179792

2010-03-05

LNS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. ARMANDO C. PADUA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

As a general rule, factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[16] However, we are not bound to adhere to the general rule if we find that the factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record or are not supported by substantial evidence,[17] as in the instant case.

GR No. 185954

2010-02-16

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON

VELASCO JR., J.

It is an established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from cases where their decisions are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are not active combatants in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges' active participation.[17] When judges actively participate in the appeal of their judgment, they, in a way, cease to be judicial and have become adversarial instead.[18]

GR No. 180146

2008-12-18

PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA v. POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,[28] the Court explained:It is a well-known doctrine that a judge should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such doctrine is the fact that a judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. When a judge actively participates in the appeal of his judgment, he, in a way, ceases to be judicial and has become adversarial instead.

GR No. 178923

2008-11-27

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,[36] the Court further warned that:The court or the quasi-judicial agency must be detached and impartial, not only when hearing and resolving the case before it, but even when its judgment is brought on appeal before a higher court. The judge of a court or the officer of a quasi-judicial agency must keep in mind that he is an adjudicator who must settle the controversies between parties in accordance with the evidence and the applicable laws, regulations, and/or jurisprudence. His judgment should already clearly and completely state his findings of fact and law. There must be no more need for him to justify further his judgment when it is appealed before appellate courts. When the court judge or the quasi-judicial officer intervenes as a party in the appealed case, he inevitably forsakes his detachment and impartiality, and his interest in the case becomes personal since his objective now is no longer only to settle the controversy between the original parties (which he had already accomplished by rendering his judgment), but more significantly, to refute the appellant's assignment of errors, defend his judgment, and prevent it from being overturned on appeal.

GR No. 168309

2008-09-25

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MARIAN D. TORRES

NACHURA, J.

Given the particular circumstances surrounding this case, it cannot be justly and validly inferred that private respondents indeed falsified their DTRs without the presentation of the corresponding DTRs themselves, since these DTRs were supposed to be the subject of the falsification. A party to an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with substantial evidence, and the complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman could not have established proof of the falsification absent the alleged falsified documents.[11]

	GR No. 204105 2015-10-14	GERONIMO S. ROSAS v. DILAUSAN MONTOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Misconduct is defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."[39] It becomes grave misconduct when it "involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence."[40] A person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the additional elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.[41] The charge of gross misconduct is a serious charge that warrants the removal or dismissal of a public officer or employee from service together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.[42]
	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
the proper mode of appeal. Rule 43 governs appeals to the CA from decisions or final orders of quasi-judicial agencies.[24] Reliance by the CA on Sec. 14 in relation to Sec. 27 of RA 6770 to support its position as to which court a party may repair to to assail the OMB's decision in disciplinary cases is misinformed. As has been held, those portions of said Sec. 27 and any other provisions
	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements; otherwise, the government employee may only liable for negligence, not for dishonesty.[47] In addition, only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income of the public officer/employee and income from other sources, and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions, does he or she become susceptible to dishonesty.[48] Substantial evidence
	GR No. 181598 2013-03-06	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ARNEL A. BERNARDO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Neither can petitioner's 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 house hold?" 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.[14] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 175991 2011-08-31	JOSE R. CATACUTAN v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
While petitioner may have laudable objectives in refusing the implementation of private complainants' valid appointments, the Court fails to see how he can still claim good faith when no less than the higher authorities have already sustained the validity of the subject appointments and have ordered him to proceed with the implementation. "It is well to remember that good intentions do not win cases, evidence does."[34]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2261 2011-07-26	ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ v. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ PEREZ, J.
In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, [44] for negligence in accomplishing his Statement of Assets and Liabilities for the year 2002, this Court held: xxx And since petitioner is already compulsorily retired, he can no longer serve his suspension; yet, this Court can still order, in lieu of such penalty, the forfeiture of the amount equivalent to petitioner's salary for six months from his retirement benefits. [45] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR Nos. 190580-81 2011-02-21	LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
Carabeo claims that his head office, the DOF, should have alerted him on the deficiency in his SALN and given him the chance to correct the same before any charge is filed against him in connection with the same. But, the Sandiganbayan, citing Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG),[4] held that the review of the SALN by the head of office is irrelevant and cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an independent investigation for criminal violations committed by the public official or employee.
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
On February 21, 2008, the CA rendered the challenged decision. Citing Pleyto v. Philippine National Police (PNP)-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG),[26] the CA opined that in charges of dishonesty "intention is an important element in its commission."[27] The CA ruled that Racho "never denied the existence of the bank accounts. Instead, he undertook to explain that those were not wholly owned by him and endeavored to secure and submit documentary evidence to buttress explanation. Judging from his conduct, there is want of intent to conceal information. Intent, as held in the Pleyto case, is essential to constitute dishonesty and without the intent to commit a wrong, the public officer is not dishonest, albeit he is adjudged to be negligent."[28]
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
Dishonesty begins when an individual intentionally makes a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.[51] It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[52] It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee.[53] Section 52 (A)(1), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service treats dishonesty as a grave offense the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first infraction.[54]
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
For these reasons, the Court is of the view that Pleyto v. Philippine National Police (PNP)-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG)[55] which the CA cited as basis to exculpate Racho of dishonesty, is not applicable in this case. In the Pleyto case, the Court recognized Pleyto's candid admission of his failure to properly and completely fill out his SALN, his vigorous effort to clarify the entries and provide the necessary information and supporting documents to show how he and his wife acquired their properties.[56] The Court found substantial evidence that Pleyto and his wife had lawful sources of income other than Pleyto's salary as a government official which allowed them to purchase several real properties in their names and travel abroad.[57]
	GR No. 179792 2010-03-05	LNS INTERNATIONAL MANPOWER SERVICES v. ARMANDO C. PADUA DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a general rule, factual findings of administrative and quasi-judicial agencies specializing in their respective fields, especially when affirmed by the CA, must be accorded high respect, if not finality.[16] However, we are not bound to adhere to the general rule if we find that the factual findings do not conform to the evidence on record or are not supported by substantial evidence,[17] as in the instant case.
	GR No. 185954 2010-02-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON VELASCO JR., J.
It is an established doctrine that judges should detach themselves from cases where their decisions are appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such a doctrine is the fact that judges are not active combatants in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without the judges' active participation.[17] When judges actively participate in the appeal of their judgment, they, in a way, cease to be judicial and have become adversarial instead.[18]
	GR No. 180146 2008-12-18	PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA v. POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,[28] the Court explained:It is a well-known doctrine that a judge should detach himself from cases where his decision is appealed to a higher court for review. The raison d'etre for such doctrine is the fact that a judge is not an active combatant in such proceeding and must leave the opposing parties to contend their individual positions and the appellate court to decide the issues without his active participation. When a judge actively participates in the appeal of his judgment, he, in a way, ceases to be judicial and has become adversarial instead.
	GR No. 178923 2008-11-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLANDO L. MAGNO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,[36] the Court further warned that:The court or the quasi-judicial agency must be detached and impartial, not only when hearing and resolving the case before it, but even when its judgment is brought on appeal before a higher court. The judge of a court or the officer of a quasi-judicial agency must keep in mind that he is an adjudicator who must settle the controversies between parties in accordance with the evidence and the applicable laws, regulations, and/or jurisprudence. His judgment should already clearly and completely state his findings of fact and law. There must be no more need for him to justify further his judgment when it is appealed before appellate courts. When the court judge or the quasi-judicial officer intervenes as a party in the appealed case, he inevitably forsakes his detachment and impartiality, and his interest in the case becomes personal since his objective now is no longer only to settle the controversy between the original parties (which he had already accomplished by rendering his judgment), but more significantly, to refute the appellant's assignment of errors, defend his judgment, and prevent it from being overturned on appeal.
	GR No. 168309 2008-09-25	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MARIAN D. TORRES NACHURA, J.
Given the particular circumstances surrounding this case, it cannot be justly and validly inferred that private respondents indeed falsified their DTRs without the presentation of the corresponding DTRs themselves, since these DTRs were supposed to be the subject of the falsification. A party to an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with substantial evidence, and the complainant before the Office of the Ombudsman could not have established proof of the falsification absent the alleged falsified documents.[11]

SALVADOR A. PLEYTO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION