Simple negligence, not dishonesty

Will failure to provide a detailed list of assets and business interests in the SALN warrant the removal or dismissal from the service of the erring public officer or employee? This is the question answered in this case of a DPWH Undersecretary (Usec). This case is very relevant and useful in resolving the present controversy surrounding Corona’s SALN.

The case stemmed from an anonymous letter of alleged employees of the DPWH, accusing the Usec of extortion, illicit affairs and manipulation of DPWH projects. On the basis of this letter, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) required the USEC to submit his 1999, 2000 and 2001 SALNs. After going over the said SALNs, the PAGC found that while the Usec clearly stated on the front page of the SALN that his wife was a business woman, he failed to disclose his wife’s business interest and financial connections by answering “None” in the column for financial and business interest in his 1999 SALN, while he left the same blank in his 2000 and 2001 SALN, when in truth, his wife had the following businesses: a Pawnshop registered since May 19, 1993; a Piggery and Poultry Farm registered since December 29, 1998; another branch of the Pawnshop registered since July 24, 2004; and a Laundry and Dry Cleaning business registered on July 24, 2001.

Accordingly, the PAGC recommended to the Office of the President (OP) his dismissal with forfeiture of all government financial benefits and disqualification to re-enter government service for violating Section 8 of RA 6713 which provides that, “All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interest and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under 18 years of age living in their household.”

For his defense the Usec said that he indicated “none” in the column on financial and business interest because he and his wife had no business interest related to the DPWH. He also attributed the mistake to the fact that his SALNs were merely prepared by his wife’s bookkeeper. Should the Usec be removed?

No. The Usec’s failure to disclose his wife’s business interest and other financial connections constituted simple negligence, not gross misconduct or dishonesty. In his SALNs it is already clearly stated that his wife is a businesswoman and thus it can be logically deduced that she had business interest. Such statement would be inconsistent with the intention to conceal his and his wife’s business interest.

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. In the case of public officials, there is simple 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.

Thus, at most the Usec here is guilty of simple negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALN was accomplished properly, accurately and in more detail. He was negligent for failing to comply with his duty to provide a detailed list of his assets and business interest 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. His negligence is simple and not gross because of the absence of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive considering that his SALN actually disclosed the full extent of his assets and that he and his wife had other business interest (PAGC vs. Pleyto, G.R. 176058, March 23, 2011, 646 SCRA, 294).

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected].