Carlos v. Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service

SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH (17TH) DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP NO. 138169. October 27, 2015.] JESSIE JAVIER CARLOS , petitioner , vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN , respondents. DECISION GONZALES-SISON, M. , J p : This petition for review filed by Jessie Javier Carlos (Carlos) under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court assails the October 25, 2012 Decision 1 and the October 25, 2014 Joint Order 2 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-C-A-11-0775-L (LSC). The Facts The case arose from the complaint 3 filed by the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) on December 2, 2011 before the Ombudsman against Carlos for violation of: (a) Article (Art.) 171, paragraph (4) 4 in relation to Art. 183 5 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), (b) Section 7 6 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, 7 as amended, in relation to Sec. 8 8 of R.A. 6713, 9 (c) Sec. 8 10 of R.A. 3019 in relation to Sec. 2 11 of R.A. 1379, 12 (d) Sec. 52 (A) (2) 13 of Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution 99-1936 14 and (e) Sec. 52 (A) (3), 15 Rule IV of CSC Resolution 99-1936. Carlos started as a contractual Tax Specialist II at the DOF-One-Stop Shop Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (DOF-OSS Center) on September 1, 2000 then with an annual gross salary of P152,004.00. His contract was renewed every six months thereafter until his permanent appointment as Tax Specialist I on September 27, 2005 with an initial annual gross income of P126,420.00, which, as of November 25, 2011, increased to P210,480.00. 16 After an investigation on the lifestyle and various assets of Carlos in relation to his sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) from 2000 to 2010, DOF-RIPS charged him essentially based on the following acts, among others: 1. non-disclosure of: (a) a house and lot located in Tondo, Manila acquired through loan in July 2003 for P1,100,000.00 except beginning in the 2008 SALN, (b) a Toyota Innova Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) acquired in 2007 through loan for P973,000.00 except beginning in the 2008 SALN as well as the corresponding loan on the said vehicle, and (c) his wife's business interest and/or financial connection in Armset Trading in the 2010 SALN; and 2. amassing unexplained wealth and several properties disproportionate to his income and obtaining dubious loans to cover up the gains in his assets from 2008 to 2010 as follows: (a) he obtained personal loans of P4,000,000.00 and P5,000,000.00 in 2008 and 2010, respectively, as well as auto loans of P973,000.00 for Toyota Innova SUV and P1,600,000.00 for Hyundai Starex Van in 2008 and 2010, respectively; (b) he purchased a house and lot located in Sta. Cruz, Manila covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 283417 17 by way of Deed of Absolute Sale 18 dated June 19, 2008 for P3,000,000.00; (c) he and his wife, Maria Angelita Carlos, bought from Corazon A. Columna two farm lots, one of which had an agricultural building, situated in Tanauan City, Batangas covered by TCT Nos. T-14190 and T-141991 by way of Deed of Absolute Sale 19 dated sometime in 2010 for P4,000,000.00 cash; HESIcT (d) while his mortgage payable for 2008 to 2010 remained dormant at P385,000.00, he also obtained an auto loan for P1,600,000.00 on a Hyundai Starex Van; and (e) obtained credit card debts from P200,000.00 in 2006 to P600,000.00 in the succeeding years. In his counter-affidavit 20 and supplement 21 thereto, Carlos claimed good faith in filling out the details in his SALNs and that he was never given a chance to rectify the alleged omissions or mistakes therein. Carlos also alleged that the Toyota Innova SUV was declared in his 2007 SALN because while the purchase was made on an installment basis in 2003, the price was only fully paid in 2007. The said vehicle was, however, removed from his SALN after it was sold in 2010. He likewise averred he did not declare his wife's business, Armset Trading, because it is still not operating. As to the charges of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, Carlos argued that he had complied with the disclosure requirement under Sec. 8 of R.A. 6713 and Sec. 7 of R.A. 3019 and that the issues raised in the complaint in relation to his SALN had no direct relation to the performance of his official duties. The Ombudsman Ruling On October 25, 2012, the Ombudsman issued a Decision finding Carlos guilty of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and disposing as follows: WHEREFORE , we find respondent JESSIE JAVIER CARLOS guilty of the offense of GRAVE MISCONDUCT and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY and as such is thereby imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, as provided for under Rule IV, Section 52(A) (2) no[s]. 3 and 2, in relation to Section 58 (a) 22 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. SO RESOLVED. 23 Carlos filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Joint Motion for Reconsideration but these were denied for lack of merit by the Ombudsman in the Joint Order dated October 25, 2014. The Issues Aggrieved, Carlos filed the present petition raising the following issues: A. WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITIONER WAS AFFORDED THE DUE PROCESS GOVERNED BY SECTION 10 OF R.A. 6713; B. WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION DATED 25 OCTOBER 2012, AND JOINT ORDER DATED 25 OCTOBER 2014 WERE DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAME; [AND] C. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO HOLD THE PETITIONER ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. 24 Our Ruling On the first issue, petitioner Carlos argues that he should have been given the opportunity to correct an incomplete and/or not properly filed SALN in accordance with the review and compliance procedure provided in Sec. 10 25 of R.A. 6713. We are not convinced. It must be stressed that the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations is beyond cavil as mandated in Section 12, 26 in relation to Section 13, 27 Article XI of the Constitution. Furthermore, Pleyto v. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group 28 teaches us that the Ombudsman is bestowed by R.A. 6770 29 with full administrative disciplinary authority to, inter alia , investigate, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, determine the appropriate penalty imposable as warranted by the evidence and, necessarily, impose said penalty on erring public officers or employees as in the case of petitioner who was charged in relation to the filing of his SALN, thus: caITAC Given its mandate, the Office of the Ombudsman can review the SALN of a public officer or employee if a complaint is filed against the latter, separate and independent of the review of the SALN by the public officer or employee's head of office. In the event that a complaint is filed against a public officer or employee concerning his SALN, the Office of the Ombudsman shall be obliged to comply, not with the review procedure for heads of office in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, but with the procedure for administrative complaints as laid out in Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman . Although in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman, the public officer or employee is no longer afforded the opportunity for corrective action on his SALN, he is still allowed to file counter-affidavits and other evidence in his defense. 30 [Underscoring supplied.] From a reading of Sec. 10 of R.A. 6713, it is apparent that it primarily imposes upon the heads of offices the duty to review the SALNs of their subordinates. If a head of office finds that the SALN of a certain subordinate is incomplete or not in the proper form, then the head of office must inform the subordinate concerned and direct him to take corrective action. Unquestionably, it is an internal procedure limited within the office concerned. It does not even provide for instances when a complainant, not the head of office, may question the SALN of a public officer or employee. 31 Such a procedure does not find application in the Petition at bar because petitioner's SALN was not being reviewed or questioned by his head of office, particularly at the DOF, but by the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether or not petitioner's SALN was actually reviewed by his head of office is irrelevant and cannot bar the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting an investigation of petitioner for violation of Section 8 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees , as well as Section 7 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act , upon the filing of a complaint by the DOF-RIPS. 32 Such procedure cannot limit the authority of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative investigations. Actually, nowhere in R.A. 6713 does it say that the Review and Compliance Procedure is a prerequisite to the filing of administrative charges for false declarations or concealments in one's SALN. 33 In no way did the law say that a public officer clearly violating R.A. 6713 must first be notified of any concealed or false information in his SALN and allowed to correct the same before he is administratively charged. 34 Thus, with the submission of position paper, 35 counter-affidavit and supplement counter-affidavit by petitioner before the Ombudsman, due process was observed. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. So long as the party is given the opportunity to explain his side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with. 36 In connection with the Ombudsman's mandate to act promptly on complaints filed before it, Section 4, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman , as amended, provides that upon receipt of the complaint, the same shall be evaluated by the Ombudsman whether it will be dismissed, treated as a grievance or request for assistance, referred to other disciplinary authorities for the taking of appropriate administrative proceedings or fact-finding investigation, or docketed as an administrative case. 37 The second and third issues, being interrelated, shall be discussed jointly. Petitioner basically argues that the Ombudsman had no substantial evidence to declare his properties as illegally acquired or finding him liable for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty is not supported by evidence. The charges against petitioner for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty basically stemmed from his alleged act of amassing unexplained wealth or acquiring properties disproportionate to his income and his alleged failure to declare them in his SALNs. Apparently, the Ombudsman noted that petitioner was unable to reasonably explain the huge disparity between his income from 2000 to 2010 and his net worth for the same period and thus, considered his accumulated wealth as ill-gotten. The Ombudsman presented this table 38 to show said disparity: Particulars 2000 2010 Increase/(Decrease) Assets P908,000.00 P10,270,000.00 P9,362,000.00 Liabilities P45,000.00 P7,585,000.00 P7,540,000.00 Net Worth P863,000.00 P2,865,000.00 P1,822,000.00 Properties of a public officer or employee may be prima facie presumed illegally acquired under Section 2 of R.A. 1379, to wit: ICHDca Section 2. Filing of petition . Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired . . . . [Underscoring supplied.] A prima facie presumption, also referred to as disputable, rebuttable or juris tantum , is satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence. The presumption in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 is merely prima facie and may still be overcome by evidence to the contrary. In fact, Section 5 of the same statute requires the court, before which the petition for forfeiture is filed, to set public hearings during which the public officer or employee may be given ample opportunity to explain to the satisfaction of the court how he had acquired the property in question. Similarly, the public officer or employee administratively charged before the Office of the Ombudsman, such as petitioner herein, must be given sufficient opportunity to present evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption applied against him: that his properties were illegally acquired. 39 Indeed, after a cursory look at the table, it would be easy to conclude that petitioner's annual salary cannot support his yearly increase in net worth, thus, giving rise to the prima facie presumption that petitioner's properties, specifically the real properties, were acquired unlawfully. While the prima facie presumption may be overcome, petitioner failed to rebut the same and offered no evidence, documentary or otherwise, to explain the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of his real properties in Manila and Batangas as well as the Toyota Innova SUV and Hyundai Starex Van and, necessarily, to show that his and his wife's combined incomes were sufficient for them to acquire said properties as well as own and operate a gun store business. Petitioner failed to establish his other sources of income as well as the corresponding income tax returns thereto. He was also unable to adduce evidence as proof of the actual loans that he availed of from banks and other financial entities or the securities used in availing real estate or auto loans. In other words, it would be safe to assume that petitioner was a pure compensation income earner. In measuring petitioner's financial capacity, a comparison between his income vis--vis the cost of the real properties and vehicles at the time of their acquisition must be made. A look at petitioner's earned salaries from 2000 to 2010 would show that these are glaringly insufficient to support his claim that the properties were lawfully acquired. With such annual salaries, it is incomprehensible how he could have acquired his undeclared assets on top of paying his taxes and living expenses. Considering his annual gross salaries for 2000 to 2010, which ranged from P152,004.00 in September 1, 2000 to P210,480.00 in November 25, 2011, the prima facie presumption of unlawful acquisition in Sec. 2 of R.A. 1379 arises as the amount of properties acquired by petitioner is manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income and his income from legitimately acquired properties. When the presumption holds, the burden of evidence then shifts to the respondent, in this instance petitioner Carlos, to show that the financial resources used to acquire the undeclared assets came from lawful income. 40 In this case, petitioner failed to discharge this burden, as the Ombudsman has determined. On the issue of petitioner's liability for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty in not filing a "true, detailed, and sworn statement of assets and liabilities", 41 it is important to note that the failure of petitioner to include several properties in his SALN, by itself, does not amount to grave misconduct. The Supreme Court stressed in Ganzon v. Arlos 42 that the criteria for an act to constitute a misconduct is that it must not be committed in his private capacity and should bear a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties. It defined misconduct as follows: Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest. TCAScE Moreover, following the ruling in Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman , 43 we hold that owning properties disproportionate to one's salary and not declaring them in the corresponding SALNs cannot, without more, be classified as grave misconduct. Even if these allegations were true, we cannot see our way clear how the fact of non-declarations would have a bearing on the performance of functions by petitioner Carlos, as Tax Specialist II of the DOF-OSS Center. It is non-sequitur to assume that the omission to declare has served, in some way, to hinder the rendition of sound public service for there is no direct relation or connection between the two. Without a nexus between the act complained of and the discharge of duty, the charge of grave misconduct shall necessarily fail. On one hand, gross neglect of duty or gross negligence "refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property." It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 44 Conformably with the above definition, we find no reason to hold petitioner guilty as well for gross neglect of duty. In connection thereto, the significance of requiring the filing of a complete, truthful, and sworn SALN as a measure to curb corruption in the bureaucracy cannot be gainsaid. Sections 7 45 and 8 46 of R.A. 3019 are emphatic on this point. In Ombudsman v. Valeroso , 47 the Supreme Court explained the significance of these provisions, to wit: Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. Indeed, the failure to file a truthful SALN puts in doubts the integrity of the officer and would normally amount to dishonesty. It should be emphasized, however, that mere misdeclaration in the SALN does not automatically amount to such an offense. Dishonesty requires malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false statements; otherwise, the government employee may only liable for negligence, not for dishonesty. In addition, only when the accumulated wealth becomes manifestly disproportionate to the income of the public officer/employee and income from other sources, and the public officer/employee fails to properly account or explain these sources of income and acquisitions, does he or she become susceptible to dishonesty. 48 In Office of the Ombudsman v. Bernardo , 49 the high tribunal elaborated on the nature of the offense of dishonesty, to wit: Dishonesty is incurred when an individual intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in order to secure his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is understood to imply the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; the disposition to defraud, deceive or betray. It is a malevolent act that puts serious doubt upon one's ability to perform his duties with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public officer or employee. . . . The inculpatory allegations in the controversy, if proved, qualify as acts of dishonesty that would merit dismissal from service. The requirement of filing a SALN is enshrined, as it were, in the Constitution 50 to promote transparency in the civil service and operates as a deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful means. By mandate of law, it behooves every government official or employee to make a complete disclosure of his or her assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters. 51 In this case, given the fact that petitioner was not able to successfully overcome the onus of demonstrating that the properties identified by the Ombudsman to be undeclared in his SALN are owned by him and part of his unexplained wealth or that the omissions in his SALNs did not betray any sense of bad faith or the intent to mislead or deceive on his part, we are inclined to adjudge that petitioner is guilty of dishonesty. cTDaEH Under Section 52 (A) (1), Rule IV of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936, dishonesty is considered a grave offense which merits a penalty of dismissal even on the first offense 52 and pursuant to Section 58 (a) of the same Rule, the penalty of dismissal inherently carries with it his cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. 53 Indeed, the discrepancy in the valuation of his declared and undeclared assets is too glaring for petitioner's omission to be written off as mere negligence or carelessness. WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED in PART . The October 25, 2012 Decision and the October 25, 2014 Joint Order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-C-A-11-0775-L (LSC) are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one is entered finding petitioner Jessie Javier Carlos guilty of DISHONESTY and imposing upon him the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment for reemployment in the government service. SO ORDERED. Cruz and Quijano-Padilla, * JJ., concur. Footnotes * Acting Junior Member per Office Order No. 448-15-ABR dated October 21, 2015. 1. Rollo , pp. 22-38. 2. Id. at 39-43. 3. Id. at 44-53. 4. Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts: xxx xxx xxx 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts ; xxx xxx xxx [Underscoring supplied.] 5. Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires. xxx xxx xxx [Underscoring supplied.] 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 . . . . [Underscoring supplied.] 7. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. 8. Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. (A) Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. 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 Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. The two documents shall contain information on the following: (a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; (b) personal property and acquisition cost; (c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; (d) liabilities; and (e) all business interests and financial connections. xxx xxx xxx 9. Also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. 10. Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth . If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One Thousand Three Hundred Seventy-Nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income , that fact shall be ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents including but not limited to activities in any club or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any public official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this Section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid ground for the administrative suspension of the public official concerned for an indefinite period until the investigation of the unexplained wealth is completed. 11. Section 2. Filing of petition. Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property , said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired . . . . xxx xxx xxx [Underscoring supplied.] 12. An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State of Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor. 13. Section 52, Rule IV (Penalties) of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 states: Section 52. Classification of Offenses . Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty 1st offense Dismissal 2. Gross Neglect of Duty 1st offense Dismissal 3. Grave Misconduct 1st offense Dismissal xxx xxx xxx 14. Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (August 31, 1999). 15. See note 13. 16. As per Service Record dated November 25, 2011 (Complaint, Annex "A"). 17. Complaint, Annex "F". 18. Id. , Annex "E". 19. Id. , Annex "I". 20. Rollo , pp. 54-60. 21. Id. at 61-65. 22. Section 58. Administrative Disabilities Inherent in Certain Penalties . a. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision. xxx xxx xxx 23. Id. at 37. 24. Id. at 11-12. 25. SEC. 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 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 . xxx xxx xxx 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. [Underscoring supplied.] 26. Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof. 27. Section 13 thereof, vests in the Office of the Ombudsman the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on compliant by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient; xxx xxx xxx 28. G.R. No. 169982, November 23, 2007. 29. The Ombudsman Act of 1989; See Section 15 hereof. 30. Section 5, Rule III (Procedure in Administrative Cases) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (Administrative Order No. 07 dated April 10, 1990) provides: Sec. 5. Administrative Adjudication; How Conducted. (a) If the complaint is not dismissed for any of the causes enumerated in Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770, the respondent shall be furnished with copy of the affidavits and other evidences submitted by the complainant, and shall be ordered to file his counter-affidavits and other evidences in support of his defense , within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, together with proof of service of the same on the complainant who may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days from receipt of the counter-affidavits of the respondent. xxx xxx xxx [Underscoring supplied.] 31. See Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG , G.R. No. 169982, November 23, 2007. 32. Id. 33. Presidential Anti-Graft Commission v. Pleyto , G.R. No. 176058, March 23, 2011. 34. Id. 35. Rollo , pp. 66-77. 36. Flores v. Montemayor , G.R. No. 170146, August 25, 2010. 37. Section 4. Evaluation . Upon receipt of the complaint, the same shall be evaluated to determine whether the same may be: a) dismissed outright for any grounds stated under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 6770, provided, however, that the dismissal thereof is not mandatory and shall be discretionary on the part of the Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsman concerned; b) treated as a grievance/request for assistance which may be referred to the Public Assistance Bureau, this Office, for appropriate action under Section 2, Rule IV of this Rules; c) referred to other disciplinary authorities under paragraph 2, Section 23, R.A. 6770 for the taking of appropriate administrative proceedings; d) referred to the appropriate office/agency or official for the conduct of further fact-finding investigation; or e) docketed as an administrative case for the purpose of administrative adjudication by the Office of the Ombudsman. (Sec. 4, Rule III, A.O. 07, as amended by A.O. 17 entitled "Amendment of Rule III, Administrative Order No. 07," and signed by Ombudsman Simeon V. Marcelo on September 15, 2003; See Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159395, May 7, 2008.) 38. Rollo , p. 29. 39. Pleyto v. PNP-CIDG, supra , note 31. 40. See Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman , G.R. No. 197307, February 26, 2014. 41. Rollo , p. 35. 42. G.R. No. 174321, October 22, 2013. 43. See note 40. 44. Office of the Ombudsman v. De Leon , G.R. No. 154083, February 27, 2013. 45. See note 7. 46. See note 10. 47. G.R. No. 167828, April 2, 2007. 48. Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra , note 40. 49. G.R. No. 181598, March 6, 2013 citing Office of the Ombudsman v. Valencia , G.R. No. 183890, April 13, 2011. 50. Art. XI, Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth . In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. [Underscoring supplied.] 51. Gupilan-Aguilar v. Office of the Ombudsman, supra note 40. 52. See note 13. 53. See note 22.