CASE DIGEST
Carlos v. Department of
Finance
G.R. No. 225774. April
18, 2023
EN BANC, LEONEN J.
Liability of SALN violations; Due Process in error and omissions on SALNs
Compliance with the mandatory review
under Republic Act No. 6713 is a prerequisite for holding public officials or
employees liable for omissions or errors in their SALNs. This requires the
government to notify individuals of any defects in their SALNs and provide them
an opportunity to correct these defects. Without following this procedure,
liability for SALN violations does not arise.
Carlos was initially hired as a Tax Specialist II on a contractual basis by the Department of Finance-One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center. He later received a permanent appointment as Tax Specialist I. Carlos was investigated for discrepancies between his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs) and his actual assets, including properties and loans. He was accused of failing to disclose various assets, obtaining dubious loans, and amassing wealth disproportionate to his income. The Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.
Whether or not Carlos was guilty of dishonesty for his alleged omissions and errors in his SALNs.
No. The Court held that Carlos cannot be held liable
for omissions or errors in his SALNs because the government failed to comply
with the mandatory review and compliance procedure outlined in Section 10 of
Republic Act No. 6713. This procedure requires the government to inform the
reporting individual of any defects in their SALNs and provide them an
opportunity to correct these defects. Without following this procedure,
liability for SALN violations does not arise. The Court emphasized that the
review and compliance mechanism serves as a buffer against haphazard actions
and affords public officials the opportunity to explain discrepancies. The
Court also noted that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and prosecute
violations of SALNs is not absolute and should be in line with the procedures
set forth in Republic Act No. 6713. Therefore, the Court ruled that Carlos was
not guilty of dishonesty and should not be penalized for the alleged SALN
discrepancies.
No comments:
Post a Comment