FALSIFICATION OF SALN

FALSIFICATION OF STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH (SALN)

The Supreme Court, in the case of Casimiro vs Rigor, G.R. No. 206661, December 10, 2014 explained the nature and effect of falsification of SALN, thus:

Falsification of an official document such as the SALN is considered a grave offense. It amounts to dishonesty. Both falsification and dishonesty are grave offenses punishable by:

(1)    dismissal from the service, even for the first offense,

(2) with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.

REASONING OF THE COURT:

The act of falsifying an official document is in itself grave because of its possible deleterious effects on government service.

At the same time, it is also an act of dishonesty, which violates fundamental principles of public accountability and integrity.

Under Civil Service regulations, falsification of an official document and dishonesty are distinct offenses, but both may be committed in one act, as in this case. The constitutionalization of public accountability shows the kind of standards of public officers that are woven into the fabric of our legal system. To reiterate, public office is a public trust, which embodies a set of standards such as responsibility, integrity and efficiency. Unfortunately, reality may sometimes depart from these standards, but our society has consciously embedded them in our laws so that they may be demanded and enforced as legal principles, and the Court is mandated to apply these principles to bridge actual reality to the norms envisioned for our public service.

FACTS:

In 2005, the General Investigation Bureau-A of the Office of the Ombudsman (GIB-A-OMB) initiated a lifestyle check on Josefino N. Rigor, then the Regional Director of the DPWH-National Capital Region (DPWHNCR). Based on irregularities found in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs), the GIB-A-OMB filed a complaint against Rigor for alleged unexplained wealth and violation of Republic Act No. 30195 and Republic Act No. 1379. The complaint accused Rigor of failing to declare several properties, business interests, and financial connections in his SALNs. The administrative charges against him included Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Falsification of Official Documents. Among the properties and business interests he allegedly failed to declare were fourteen parcels of land in Victoria, Tarlac, seven parcels of land in Tarlac City, a commercial/residential building in Sampaloc, Manila, a Toyota Rav 4 Sports Utility Vehicle, and business interests in Jetri Construction Corporation and Disneyland Bus Line, Inc. In addition, Rigor failed to include these properties and business interests in his SALNs for the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Josefino N. Rigor, a Regional Director of the DPWH-National Capital Region, was initially found guilty of Dishonesty by the OMB in 2006 but was later re-evaluated in 2011, and was only found guilty of Simple Negligence. However, an Omnibus Motion was filed by the DPWH Secretary through the Office of the Solicitor General, arguing for a reversal of the OMB Order. The OMB issued a new Order in 2011, finding Rigor guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents. Rigor filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which was granted by the CA, and the OMB and the DPWH filed a Petition for Review. They argue that the CA erred in using the remedy of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 instead of Rule 63 and that there is enough evidence to hold Rigor administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents.

ISSUES:

(1) WON THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION IS AN IMPROPER REMEDY TO ASSAIL RESPONDENT’S DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. - YES.

(2) WON THE CA GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE DPWH CAN NO LONGER INTERVENE BEFORE THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND ASSAIL THE APRIL 29, 2011 ORDER FINDING RESPONDENT ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE ONLY FOR SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE. - YES

HELD:

(1) 

YES. Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the OMB should be taken to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 43 prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the OMB, and was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Rigor, in support of his petition for certiorari, argues that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy available to him. But it is settled that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.

(2) 

YES. 

And even if the special civil action of certiorari were to be allowed, Rigor still failed to show that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the intervention of the DPWH.

Under Section 13(8), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, the OMB is authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure. As such, it likewise holds the power to amend or modify said rules as the interest of justice may require. The emerging trend of jurisprudence is more inclined to the liberal and flexible application of procedural rules. Nonetheless, rules of procedure still exist to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy dispensation of cases;to this end, inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. Thus, the relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it.

Here, the records clearly show compelling and justifiable reasons for the OMB to allow the Omnibus Motion of the DPWH and, consequently, hold Rigor administratively liable. Rigor alleges that the business interests in the Jetri Construction Corporation, the two-storey building in Sampaloc, Manila, the Toyota RAV 4 SUV, and the Dodge Ram Road Trek were all separate properties of his second wife, Anastacia, that was why he never included the same in his SALNs. Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713,15 however, requires him to declare under oath eventhe assets, liabilities, and financial interests of his spouse, xxx