Saln Form Required By Ra 6713 Download [VERIFIED]

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 24, 2013 Decision1 and the November 8, 2013 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 124353, which affirmed the September 8, 2009 Decision3 and the May 31, 2011 Order4 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman), in OMB-C-A-05-0260-F.

The questioned issuances of the Ombudsman found petitioner Atty. Amado Q. Navarro (Navarro) guilty of the administrative offenses of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713,5 resulting in his dismissal from the service, with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of retirement benefits, except the cash equivalent of his accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.

The Antecedents

In 1980, CPA-lawyer Navarro began his employment at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) as Revenue Examiner I with an annual gross salary of P11,904.00. He then became the Revenue District Officer (RDO) of Baguio City and was later designated as Chief Revenue Officer IV (CRO IV) with an annual salary of P246,876.00.

The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS), a division of the Department of Finance (DOF) tasked to conduct investigations on allegations of corrupt practices of officials and employees of offices attached to or supervised by the DOF, received a complaint against Navarro. Acting thereon, the DOF-RIPS investigated Navarro and opined that based on his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN), he had been steadily amassing landholdings in Baguio City since his appointment as the RDO there and had constructed three (3) structures on some of the parcels of land.6chanrobleslaw

On May 30, 2005, Intelligence Officers Oscar Moratin, Virman L. Sayang-od and Johnny S. Lassin, representing the DOF-RIPS, filed their Joint Complaint-Affidavit7 before the Ombudsman against Navarro, for acts and omissions that are deemed illegal, unjust, improper, and/or otherwise irregular or immoral.8 It was averred hi the said complaint that Navarro did not properly declare his assets in his SALNs; that Navarro did not own any real property prior to his employment with the BIR in 1980; that he acquired his real properties, including a resort and commercial buildings, in Baguio City and La Union; that, even assuming they were declared under "Improvements," the amounts declared in his SALN were miniscule, as the improvements constructed were two (2) multi-storey buildings and a two-storey building;9 and that he overstated his liabilities to decrease his networth and failed to disclose his engagement in other forms of businesses. For said reason, it was the conclusion of the DOF-RIPS that "his substantial real property ownership is manifestly out of proportion to his lawful income."10chanrobleslaw

On July 21, 2005, Navarro filed his Counter-Affidavit11 in the criminal aspect thereof denying the averments therein. He attached the documents pertaining to his applicable share of ownership with his siblings over the properties enumerated in the said complaint-affidavit and his other sources of lawful income. This counter-affidavit was later considered by the Ombudsman in the administrative case.

On April 4, 2008, the Ombudsman placed Navarro under preventive suspension pending investigation and while awaiting the adjudication of the administrative complaint against him.

On September 8, 2009, the Ombudsman rendered a decision finding Navarro guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct and violation of R.A. No. 6713 and meted out the penalty of dismissal from the service with its accessory penalties.12chanrobleslaw

Navarro filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that he was deprived of his right to due process, but it was denied.

Aggrieved, he filed a petition for review under Rule 43 before the CA.

Acting thereon, the CA dismissed Navarro's petition for lack of merit as it considered the Ombudsman decision and resolution amply supported by substantial evidence. The CA was not convinced that he was denied due process. The CA was of the view that he was able to file a motion for reconsideration of the assailed decision and even attached thereto a copy of the counter-affidavit he had submitted in the criminal case against him, where he answered in detail all the accusations against him. The CA reiterated the principle that the essence of due process was simply to be heard, or as applied in administrative proceedings, to be given an opportunity to explain one's side, or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of; and that the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable was merely substantial evidence.13chanrobleslaw

The CA found that Navarro failed to comply with his obligation as a government employee to truthfully disclose in detail all of his business interests in his SALN. The CA noted that in his SALNs submitted from 1998-2002, Navarro simply lumped together the declared properties based on their location, which went against the legal mandate for a government employee to submit a true and detailed statement of his assets and liabilities. Moreover, he did not disclose any of the business interests he and his wife were engaged in. The CA agreed with the Ombudsman that because his total income in 1982 from the government and from other sources was only P28,244.00 and that he was able to purchase a lot with improvements worth P55,000.00, his assets were disproportionate to his lawful income.14chanrobleslaw

Aggrieved, Navarro moved for a reconsideration but the CA denied his motion.

Hence, the present petition raising the following

6 Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of January.

7 Rollo, pp. 93-95.

8 Id. at 96-101.

9 Id. at 108-109.

10 Id. at 124-132.

11 Id. at 133-138.

12 Id. at 139-152.

13 Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. - (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

(b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

(c) The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

14 Rollo, pp. 153-162.

15 Id. at 163.

16 Id. at 164-172.

17 Id. at 173.

18 Id. at 174.

19 Id. at 175-184.

20 Id. at 185-228.

21 Id. at 60-82.

22 Id. at 32-59.

23 November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 534.

24 Id. at 586-588.

25 Abelita III v. Doria, G.R. No. 170672, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 220, 230.