CASE DIGEST : OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN VS. LILAH YMBONG RODAS G.R. No. 225669 GAERLAN

 FACTS : This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 questioning the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, which downgraded the Ombudsman’s finding of Serious Dishonesty against Lilah Ymbong Rodas, an Engineer II at MARINA Region VII, to Simple Negligence, and replaced her dismissal with a one-year suspension. Rodas was accused via an anonymous complaint of accumulating assets disproportionate to her income, reflected in her SALNs from 1999 to 2003. The Ombudsman ruled that her failure to disclose savings and acquisition costs constituted Serious Dishonesty, warranting dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification. Rodas admitted errors but claimed her assets were mostly inherited or acquired before government service, funded by retirement benefits and her husband’s earnings. The CA agreed that she failed to declare assets but found that she adequately explained and accounted for her wealth, thus only liable for Simple Negligence, imposing a one-year suspension without pay. During the pendency of the case, Rodas died, but the Court denied the motion to dismiss due to mootness and proceeded to resolve the petition, with the Ombudsman insisting on Serious Dishonesty but allowing survivorship benefits for humanitarian reasons.

ISSUE : WON CA correctly ruled respondent guilty only of Simple Negligence and not, as argued by the Ombudsman, Serious Dishonesty

HELD : The Court affirmed the CA’s ruling finding the respondent guilty only of simple negligence, not serious dishonesty, for failing to declare her savings in her SALNs. While the omission was improper, dishonesty requires intent to conceal or deceive, which was not proven. The respondent sufficiently explained that her undeclared savings legitimately came from her 19-year private sector employment and retirement benefits, and this was not disputed. The Court emphasized that mere non-declaration in SALN does not automatically equate to dishonesty unless the wealth is manifestly disproportionate and unexplained. Since there was no malicious intent or falsification, her error was due to carelessness, constituting simple negligence, punishable by suspension. However, due to her death, the penalty can no longer be enforced, and her heirs are entitled to death and survivorship benefits. The Court reminded the Ombudsman to pursue justice with fairness and proportionality.