SC: Former DPWH exec was negligent, not dishonest

A former undersecretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) who was dismissed from government service for failing to file accurate Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Net worth (SALNs) for the years 2001 and 2002 should have only been suspended for six months without pay, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a Nov. 28 decision penned by Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario, the High Court’s Third Division ruled that former DPWH undersecretary Salvador Pleyto did not commit gross misconduct or dishonesty but was guilty of negligence in accomplishing his SALN since “there was no substantial evidence of his intent to deceive the authorities and conceal his other sources of income or any of the real properties of his and his wife’s names.”

The High Court said there was substantial evidence to show that Pleyto and his wife Miguela have lawful sources of income other than Pleyto’s salary as a government official. This, the Court said, enabled the couple to acquire several real properties in their names and travel abroad.

“Hence the imposition of the penalty or removal or dismissal from public service and all other accessory penalties on petitioner (Pleyto) is indeed too harsh. Nevertheless, petitioner failed to pay attention to the details and proper form of his SALN, resulting in the imprecision of the property descriptions and inaccuracy of certain information, for which suspension from office for a period of six months without pay, would have been appropriate penalty,” the Court said.

The Court issued its decision after Pleyto filed before it a petition for review assailing the May 27, 2004 decision of the Office of the Ombudsman on his administrative case. The Ombudsman ordered his dismissal from service after being found guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. The Ombudsman’s order was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in its July 20, 2005 decision.

Pleyto’s case stemmed from a graft complaint dated July 28, 2003 filed by the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group before the Office of the Ombudsman following a lifestyle check. In its complaint, the CIDG accused Pleyto of amassing unexplained wealth and not properly filing his SALNs for the years 2001 and 2002.

The Office of the Ombudsman, on Sept. 9, 2003, recommended that the CIDG’s complaint that was filed through its then director, Eduardo Matillano, be separately docketed as a criminal and an administrative case. Pleyto’s graft case over his alleged unexplained wealth is still pending with the Sandiganbayan.

Aside from dismissal from public office, Pleyto’s retirement benefits were forfeited and he was barred from reentering government service.

However, the High Court noted that since Pleyto reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 last March 22, he cannot be reinstated. The Court also ordered that his forfeited retirement benefits be restored.

The Court also ordered that an amount equivalent to his salary for six months be forfeited from his retirement benefits as penalty since he can no longer serve his suspension.

In his petition for review with the Supreme Court, Pleyto said the properties listed by the CIDG in its complaint before the Ombudsman are indeed his.

However, he stressed that these were acquired by way of foreclosure as his wife has a lending business in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. Pleyto also said that he is not solely dependent on his salary as a government official as his wife has been operating several businesses in Bulacan for almost 25 years, including the lending business, a piggery and a pawnshop.

He also said that his children are professionals who are not dependent on him and his wife. He also said that the CIDG exaggerated the computation of the travel expenses of his family.

“When petitioner presented evidence in support of his defense, the Office of the Ombudsman proceeded to question and challenge, and ultimately, disregard in totality petitioner’s evidence, despite the fact that the PNP-CIDG no longer presented any evidence to controvert the same,” the High Court said.

The Supreme Court said while it “commends the efforts of the PNP-CIDG and the Office of the Ombudsman to hold accountable public officers and employees with unexplained wealth and unlawfully acquired properties, it cannot countenance unsubstantiated charges against a hapless public official just to send a message that the government is serious in its campaign against graft and corruption. No matter how noble the intentions of the PNP-CIDG and the Office of the Ombudsman in pursuing this administrative case against petitioner, it will do them well to remember that good intentions do not win cases; evidence does.”