Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service vs. Ventura

The Ombudsman has legal interest to intervene in appeals of its decisions, but a motion to intervene must still comply with the time requirement under Rule 19; and repeated intentional nondisclosure of a public officer's marriage and children in the Personal Data Sheet and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, absent the circumstances of serious dishonesty, constitutes less serious dishonesty and simple misconduct.

Ventura was a Collector of Customs V at the Bureau of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila. As a public officer, he was required to submit a Personal Data Sheet and yearly Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth under Civil Service Commission rules and Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713. The Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service and the Office of the Ombudsman are the offices involved in investigating and disciplining public officers for administrative offenses.

Raymond Pinzon Ventura was a Collector of Customs V at the Bureau of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila. He had been married to Maricar San Juan Guevarra since September 18, 1993, and they had three children: Francisco Rigor Guevarra Ventura, born in 1994; Angelica Mari Guevarra Ventura, born in 1999; and Eliana Raye Guevarra Ventura, born in 2009. According to Ventura, he and Maricar had been estranged even before he started working at the Bureau of Customs in 2002.

On January 28, 2003, in his Personal Data Sheet submitted for his promotion from Attorney III to Collector of Customs IV, Ventura declared that he was single despite his subsisting marriage. He also failed to declare his three children in both his Personal Data Sheet and his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth from 2002 to 2013. In those SALNs, he declared ownership over real properties located in Antipolo, Quezon City, Olongapo City, Subic, and Makati, although the properties were not registered in his name. He also did not declare his affiliation with several corporations, including Cross Border Management Corporation, Strategic Business Management Alliance, and his wife's corporations.

The complaint also alleged that Ventura travelled to Macau from November 9 to 12, 2008 without securing a travel authority from the Department of Finance, in violation of Executive Order No. 6. Ventura claimed that he secured a travel authority from the Bureau of Customs.

On May 20, 2015, the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service filed a Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Ventura for serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations. The Complaint accused him of (a) failing to declare his spouse and children in his PDS and SALN; (b) falsely declaring real properties not registered in his name; (c) failing to declare his business interest in Cross Border Management Corporation and Strategic Business Management Alliance, as well as his wife's business interest; and (d) failing to secure the necessary travel authority for his Macau trip.

In his July 18, 2015 Counter-Affidavit, Ventura denied all charges. He claimed that he did not disclose his marriage in his PDS and SALNs because he and his wife had been estranged even before he started working at the Bureau of Customs in 2002, and that he chose to stay silent about his wife and children as he had "never been the type to wash his dirty laundry in public." He said he could not have disclosed his affiliation with his wife's corporations since they were separated and he was not aware of her business interests. He justified the real properties declared in his SALNs but not registered in his name as acquired either by sale or inheritance and not yet transferred to his name. He claimed that his affiliations with Cross Border Management Corporation and Strategic Business Management Alliance were with non-operational and dormant businesses. As to the travel authority, he asserted that while he did not secure one from the Department of Finance, he secured one from the Bureau of Customs.

The Office of the Ombudsman absolved Ventura of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and accepted his justifications for the properties not in his name and the nondisclosure of his corporate affiliations. However, it found him guilty of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct due to the nondisclosure of his wife and children. The Court of Appeals later found that his dishonesty in his PDS and SALNs did not amount to grave misconduct because he neither gained benefit for himself nor showed willful disregard of established rules, and there was no showing that his concealment was used to illegally acquire public funds. The Supreme Court noted that it was undisputed that, despite his obligation to do so, Ventura failed to disclose his existing marriage and three children in his PDS and SALNs from 2002 to 2013, and that he signed declarations that all information was true, correct, and complete.

• Office of the Ombudsman — Gravity of Dishonesty: The Office of the Ombudsman asserted that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Ventura was guilty only of simple dishonesty despite substantial evidence proving the gravity of his actions. It maintained that as a government employee, Ventura was legally bound to disclose the truth in his Personal Data Sheet and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and that his false statements in official government documents clearly amounted to dishonesty and put his integrity in question. It further argued that his justifications were of no moment and that nondisclosure of vital information in government records was sufficient proof of bad faith.
• Office of the Ombudsman — Standing to Intervene: The Office of the Ombudsman asserted its standing to intervene in appeals of administrative cases it had resolved, citing Office of the Ombudsman vs. Quimbo, and refuted respondent's claim that it had no personality to file the petition.
• Office of the Ombudsman — Good Faith and Length of Service: In its Reply, the Office of the Ombudsman reiterated that Ventura's willful concealment was mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct, specifically grave misconduct and serious dishonesty; that his actions belied good faith; and that length of service is an alternative circumstance which, in this case, aggravated rather than mitigated his actions.
• Revenue Integrity Protection Service — Serious Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: The Revenue Integrity Protection Service argued that Ventura's willful concealment in his government records amounted to falsification of public documents constituting serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. It averred that intent to defraud the government or intent to gain is not essential in the falsification of public documents, since the violation of public faith and destruction of truth is what is punished. It asserted that dismissal is not only punishment for the offense but is also aimed at the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
• Revenue Integrity Protection Service — Applicability of CSC Resolution No. 06-0538: The Revenue Integrity Protection Service contended that the Court of Appeals erred when it declared that Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 06-0538, promulgated in 2006, was not applicable to the case. It argued that the resolution only serves as a guide to the disciplining authority in charging the proper offenses but does not set grounds for acts of dishonesty; to hold otherwise would be tantamount to modifying or amending the Court's rulings on the matter.

• Simple Dishonesty Only: Ventura claimed that the Court of Appeals was correct in finding him guilty only of simple dishonesty. He maintained that his concealment in his Personal Data Sheet and Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth could not constitute serious dishonesty since no damage or prejudice was caused to any third party or to the government, and the omission was not directly related to his employment with the Bureau of Customs and did not affect his duties and responsibilities in the agency.
• Mitigating Circumstances and Good Faith: He added that since it was his first offense in 14 years of service, his actions should be mitigated. He insisted that his concealment of his wife and children was without malice and merely a lapse of judgment on his part.
• Lack of Personality of the Office of the Ombudsman: As to the Office of the Ombudsman's petition, Ventura asserted that the Office of the Ombudsman had no personality to file the petition because it was not a party to the complaint; rather, it was the office or agency that made the Decision that was appealed from.

• Ombudsman's Personality to Intervene: Whether petitioner Office of the Ombudsman has personality to intervene in the appellate stages of a decision which it promulgated.
• Gravity of Administrative Offense: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in downgrading respondent Raymond Pinzon Ventura's offense from grave misconduct to simple dishonesty.

• Ombudsman's Personality to Intervene: Yes, the Office of the Ombudsman has legal interest and standing to intervene in appeals of its decisions in administrative cases. However, its Motion to Intervene was correctly denied because it was filed after the Court of Appeals had rendered judgment, contrary to Rule 19 of the Rules of Court.
• Gravity of Administrative Offense: Yes, in part. The Court of Appeals erred in finding Ventura liable only for simple dishonesty. His repeated and intentional nondisclosure of his marriage and children in his PDS and SALNs, absent the circumstances of serious dishonesty, constituted less serious dishonesty and simple misconduct, warranting suspension of six months and one day without pay.

• Ombudsman's Personality to Intervene: The Office of the Ombudsman has legal interest to intervene in proceedings before appellate courts to defend its decisions, as held in Office of the Ombudsman vs. Quimbo, which relied on Ombudsman vs. De Chavez. Its broad powers include defending its decisions before the Court of Appeals, and under Section 1 of Rule 19 it may validly intervene because its legal interest is beyond cavil. The Ombudsman is not a detached, disinterested, or neutral party when defending its decisions; in administrative cases against government personnel, the offense is committed against the government and public interest. Nevertheless, while the Ombudsman had legal standing, standing alone was insufficient for a Motion for Intervention to prosper. Rule 19, Sections 1 and 2, require that the motion be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. The Ombudsman filed its Motion to Intervene and Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration on December 22, 2016, after the Court of Appeals rendered its December 1, 2016 Decision. It therefore did not satisfy the statutory conditions for intervention. Because intervention is not a right but is subject to the sound discretion of the courts, the Court of Appeals was well within its right to deny the motion.
• Gravity of Administrative Offense: The general rule is that courts do not interfere with the findings of fact of administrative agencies and respect them, except when there is clearly, manifestly, and patently insufficient and insubstantial evidence to support the administrative agency's findings, or when the administrative agency acted arbitrarily, with grave abuse of discretion, or in a capricious and whimsical manner amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. Here, it was undisputed that Ventura failed to disclose his existing marriage and three children in his PDS and SALNs from 2002 to 2013 despite his obligation to do so. Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2017 requires all government officials and employees to submit two copies of their accomplished PDS, and any misrepresentation in the form shall cause the filing of administrative, criminal, or both cases. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 requires all public officials and employees to submit sworn SALNs stating all assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests of their spouses and unmarried minor children living in their households. Both documents require a declaration, under oath, that all information is true, correct, and complete. Ventura signed such declarations for more than ten years. By his own admissions, he intended to commit the dishonest act from 2002 to 2013; the omission of his wife and children over a decade showed a conscious decision, not mere neglect. Dishonesty is committed when one intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud to secure examination, registration, appointment, or promotion; it is the intentional and malicious concealment or distortion of the truth relevant or related to one's office or performance of duty. Ventura admitted concealing his civil status and children in official documents. The gravity of the dishonest act must then be determined. Under Committee on Security and Safety vs. Dianco, not all acts of dishonesty deserve dismissal; the Court recognized Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 06-0538, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2021, which classifies dishonesty into serious, less serious, and simple. Serious dishonesty requires any of the circumstances under Section 3: serious damage and grave prejudice to the government such as tarnishing the integrity of the office or affecting its operations; grave abuse of authority to commit the dishonest act; accountable officer with direct involvement of property, accountable forms, or money with intent to commit material gain, graft, or corruption; moral depravity; civil service examination irregularity or fake eligibility; dishonest act relating to employment such as misrepresentation of qualifications or submission of fake credentials; or analogous circumstances. None of these attended Ventura's case. His nondisclosure of marriage and children neither caused serious damage or grave prejudice to his office nor affected its operations; it was not related to his duties as Collector of Customs; it did not involve government property, forms, or money over which he was accountable; and it did not involve feigning qualifications or eligibility. The Court agreed with the Office of the Ombudsman that the Court of Appeals erred in finding simple dishonesty. PDS and SALN are required by the Civil Service Commission and hold vital information regarding one's personal and work background, qualifications, and eligibility; concealment of any piece of data cannot be said to be unrelated to one's employment because these are requirements of the same. Ventura's dishonest acts caused damage or prejudice to the government, albeit not grave. While the intricacies of his marriage and family life may not affect the performance of his duties or cause detriment to the operations of his office, the nondisclosure was committed with full intention to conceal required facts from the government. His defense that he did not want to make family issues public was not well-taken. In Villordon vs. Avila, the Court held that omission of three children in PDS submissions constitutes dishonesty amounting to misconduct; willful concealment of facts in the PDS constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct; and making a false statement in one's PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. The failure to file an accurate and truthful PDS and SALN puts one's integrity in question. While some instances of dishonesty through misdeclaration will not automatically mete dismissal, intentional and blatant misdeclarations damage the reputation of the government and the trust the people repose in it. Concealing an existing marriage with an estranged wife is one thing, but continuously hiding the fact of having three children, with whom he has a moral and legal obligation, is another. Thus, Ventura is liable for less serious dishonesty. The presence of misconduct cannot be denied. Misconduct is committed when a public officer transgresses an established and definite rule of action through unlawful behavior, recklessness, or gross negligence. Any showing of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules transforms simple misconduct to grave misconduct. Misconduct is the intent to commit a wrong. Ventura insisted that his concealment was without malice and merely a lapse of judgment, but the Court was not convinced. He filed his PDS and SALNs yearly for eleven years without indicating his wife and children, and he signed the declaration on every document stating that all information was accurate, complete, and truthful. The matter of having a subsisting marriage which bore three children is not open to interpretation. In not disclosing the same, and willfully checking the box which stated that he was single, he knowingly submitted false and erroneous information in his official government documents. Such omission is clearly a case of simple misconduct and is certainly an intentional wrongdoing unbecoming of a government employee. His argument of good faith was of no moment because the false information was declared repeatedly over more than a decade. As an attorney holding a relatively high position in the Bureau of Customs, he should have been more circumspect and aware that he was expected to set a good example to his subordinates and society. His willful transgression cannot be condoned.

• Public office is a public trust — Under Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution, public office is a public trust. Public officers must perform their functions efficiently and to the best of their abilities, adhere to the rules and requirements of law, remain accountable to the people, and uphold the integrity of public service. They are held to a higher standard in determining the propriety of their actions. The Court applied this principle in evaluating Ventura's repeated concealment of his marriage and children in official documents, emphasizing his position as an attorney and relatively high-ranking customs official.
• Ombudsman's legal interest to intervene — The Ombudsman has a legal interest to intervene in proceedings before appellate courts to defend its decisions in administrative cases, even if not impleaded, because its function is critical to public accountability and the offense is committed against the government and public interest. However, intervention is not a right; it is subject to the sound discretion of the courts and must comply with Rule 19's time requirement that the motion be filed before rendition of judgment by the trial court. The Court applied this by recognizing the Ombudsman's standing but affirming the denial of its motion, which was filed after the Court of Appeals had rendered judgment.
• Dishonesty — Dishonesty is committed when one intentionally makes a false statement of any material fact, practices or attempts to practice any deception or fraud to secure examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. It is the intentional and malicious concealment or distortion of the truth relevant or related to one's office or performance of duty. The Court found that Ventura's admissions established intentional concealment of his civil status and children in official documents.
• Classification of dishonesty under CSC Resolution No. 06-0538, as amended — Dishonesty is classified into serious, less serious, and simple. Serious dishonesty requires any of the circumstances in Section 3, including serious damage and grave prejudice to the government, grave abuse of authority, accountable officer involvement with intent to gain, moral depravity, civil service examination irregularity, dishonest act relating to employment qualifications or fake credentials, or analogous circumstances. Less serious and simple dishonesty are governed by Sections 4 and 5. The Court applied these parameters and found no serious dishonesty because none of the Section 3 circumstances attended Ventura's acts; instead, his intentional concealment caused damage or prejudice to the government, albeit not grave, and related to employment requirements, making him liable for less serious dishonesty.
• Misconduct and grave misconduct — Misconduct is committed when a public officer transgresses an established and definite rule of action through unlawful behavior, recklessness, or gross negligence. Any showing of corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules transforms simple misconduct into grave misconduct. Misconduct is the intent to commit a wrong. The Court found Ventura liable for simple misconduct because his yearly false declarations over eleven years, including willfully checking that he was single, showed intentional wrongdoing, but the circumstances did not elevate it to grave misconduct.
• Judicial respect for administrative findings and exceptions — Courts generally do not interfere with the findings of fact of administrative agencies and respect them. Exceptions exist when there is clearly, manifestly, and patently insufficient and insubstantial evidence to support the administrative agency's findings, or when the administrative agency acted arbitrarily, with grave abuse of discretion, or in a capricious and whimsical manner amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction. The Court invoked this framework in reviewing the Court of Appeals' modification of the Ombudsman's findings.
• PDS and SALN disclosure requirements — Government officials and employees must submit a Personal Data Sheet and sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. The PDS must be accomplished and any misrepresentation may cause administrative, criminal, or both cases. The SALN must state all assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests of the official's spouse and unmarried minor children living in the household. Both require a declaration under oath that the information is true, correct, and complete. The Court applied these requirements to hold that concealment of marriage and children in these documents could not be unrelated to employment and caused prejudice to the government.

• "The issue of whether or not the Ombudsman possesses the requisite legal interest to intervene in the proceedings where its decision is at risk of being inappropriately impaired has been laid to rest in Ombudsman v. De Chavez. In the said case, the Court conclusively ruled that even if the Ombudsman was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings, part of its broad powers include defending its decisions before the CA. And pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, the Ombudsman may validly intervene in the said proceedings as its legal interest on the matter is beyond cavil." — This passage states the Court's holding on the Ombudsman's legal interest to intervene in appeals of its decisions, while anchoring that interest in Rule 19.
• "Thus, while petitioner Office of the Ombudsman may have legal standing, this is not sufficient for a Motion for Intervention to prosper. The time within which to file the intervention, that is before judgement is rendered, must likewise be complied with." — This passage is the ratio for denying the Ombudsman's motion: legal standing does not excuse noncompliance with the mandatory time requirement for intervention.
• "Here, while the falsification of respondent's Personal Data Sheet and Statement of Accounts and Liabilities and Net Worth constitutes dishonesty, it will not qualify as serious dishonesty given the absence of all the attendant circumstances mentioned above." — This passage states the core classification ruling: Ventura's acts were dishonest but did not meet the circumstances for serious dishonesty.
• "Moreover, to conceal an existing marriage with an estranged wife is one thing, but to continuously hide the fact of having three children, with whom he has a moral and legal obligation, is another. As such, respondent Ventura is liable for less serious dishonesty." — This passage captures the Court's reasoning for classifying the offense as less serious dishonesty based on the repeated concealment of his children.

• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Quimbo, 755 Phil. 41 (2015) — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that the Ombudsman has the right to intervene in proceedings before appellate courts to defend its legal interests, as part of its broad powers to defend its decisions before the Court of Appeals.
• Ombudsman vs. De Chavez — Cited within Quimbo; held that even if the Ombudsman was not impleaded as a party, it may validly intervene under Section 1 of Rule 19 because its legal interest is beyond cavil.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Chipoco, G.R. Nos. 231345 & 232406, August 19, 2019 — Echoed Samaniego; held that the Ombudsman cannot be detached, disinterested, and neutral when defending its decisions, and that in administrative cases against government personnel the offense is committed against the government and public interest.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Samaniego, 586 Phil. 497 (2008) — Cited for the same principle that the Ombudsman has a direct constitutional and legal interest in the accountability of public officers.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. Gutierrez, 811 Phil. 389 (2017) — Cited for the rule that the Ombudsman has legal interest in appeals of its decisions in administrative cases, and that intervention is subject to the sound discretion of the courts.
• Committee on Security and Safety vs. Dianco, 760 Phil. 169 (2015) — Controlling precedent for the rule that not all acts of dishonesty deserve the ultimate punishment of dismissal; the gravity of the dishonest act must first be considered, and CSC Resolution No. 06-0538 sets the criteria for severity.
• Villordon vs. Avila, 692 Phil. 388 (2012) — Cited for the rule that omission of three children in PDS submissions constitutes dishonesty amounting to misconduct; willful concealment of facts in the PDS is mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct; and false statement in one's PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document.
• Navarro vs. Office of the Ombudsman, 793 Phil. 453 (2016) — Cited for the definition of dishonesty, for the rule that failure to file an accurate and truthful PDS and SALN puts one's integrity in question, and for the statement that misconduct is the intent to commit a wrong.
• Advincula vs. Dicen, 497 Phil. 979 (2005) — Cited for the rule that concealment of data in the PDS cannot be said to be unrelated to one's employment, and that the omission is simple misconduct and intentional wrongdoing unbecoming of a government employee.
• Domingo vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 236050, June 17, 2020 — Cited for the definition of misconduct and the rule that corruption, clear willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules transforms simple misconduct into grave misconduct.
• Pleyto vs. Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, 563 Phil. 842 (2007) — Cited for the exceptions to the general rule that courts respect administrative findings: insufficient or insubstantial evidence, or arbitrary or grave abuse of discretion.
• Ramos vs. Rosell, G.R. No. 241363, September 16, 2020 — Cited for the definition of dishonesty as intentional and malicious concealment or distortion of truth relevant or related to one's office or performance of duty.

• CONST., art. XI, sec. 1 — Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. The Court invoked this to hold public officers to a higher standard and to evaluate Ventura's conduct.
• Rule 19, Sections 1 and 2, Rules of Court — Section 1 allows a person with legal interest to intervene with leave of court; Section 2 requires the motion to intervene to be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. The Court applied these to deny the Ombudsman's motion, which was filed after the Court of Appeals rendered its December 1, 2016 Decision.
• Section 8, Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Requires all public officials and employees to submit sworn Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth stating all assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests of their spouses and unmarried minor children living in their households. The Court used this to establish Ventura's obligation to disclose his wife and children.
• Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 11, series of 2017 — Requires all government officials and employees to submit two copies of their accomplished Personal Data Sheet to their respective agencies; any misrepresentation in the form shall cause the filing of administrative, criminal, or both cases against the person concerned. The Court applied this to Ventura's false PDS declarations.
• Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 06-0538, series of 2006, as amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 13, series of 2021 — Classifies dishonesty into serious, less serious, and simple, and lays down the circumstances constituting each. The Court applied the parameters to find that Ventura's acts did not qualify as serious dishonesty but constituted less serious dishonesty.
• Executive Order No. 6 (1986) — Provides that all travels abroad of government officials shall be authorized by the heads of the ministries and government-owned or controlled corporations. The complaint alleged Ventura violated this when he travelled to Macau from November 9 to 12, 2008 without a Department of Finance travel authority; the Ombudsman absolved him of the charge of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.
• Rule 43, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — The procedural rule under which Ventura appealed the Ombudsman's Decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court mentioned this in the procedural history.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The procedural rule under which the Revenue Integrity Protection Service and the Office of the Ombudsman filed their Petitions for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Court mentioned this in the procedural history.

Lazaro-Javier, Inting, M. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.