PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman

 

PCGG v. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 194619

March 20, 2019

FACTS:

                PCGG filed an Affidavit-Complaint for violation of Sec. 3(e) and (g) of RA 3019. The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee discovered behest loans. The TSMCI was granted a $27,793,123,45 credit by the PNB for proposed sugar central at Sta. Catalina and Bayawan, Negros Oriental. The loan wa also subjected to various conditions including the need to increase the TSMCI’s paid-up capital to at least Php7M. TWG discovered that the former subscribed capital stock of Php2M, of which only Php500k was paid-up; that it only had capitalization of Php10M; that the lands appraised by PNB were at Php22,350 only; and that the 2 parcels were not titles or registered in the name of TSMCI but in the names of others. Further, PNB Credit Dept. disclosed that the value of all of the assets TSMCI pledged as security for the loaned amounted only to Php69,631,500 which was substantially insufficient to cover the loan amount of $27,793,123.45. Lastly, no “Joint and Solidary Surety” undertaking by its officers could be found in the records pertaining to TSMCI’s account, contrary to the conditions set by the PNB.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion.

HELD:

                Art. XI, 1987 Constitution Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint 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.  R.A. No. 6770. - AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE FUNCTIONAL AND STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of government, the investigation of such cases. There is no compelling reason to depart from the Court's long-standing policy of non- interference in the exercise by the Ombudsman of its plenary investigatory and prosecutorial powers. Although the PCGG exerted great effort in explaining how the subject loan bears the characteristics of a behest loan, they utterly failed to demonstrate or even allege that the respondents acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence, causing undue injury or unwarranted benefit to any party. The PCGG merely highlighted the alleged scandalous disproportion of the assets and collateral offered by TSMCI with the amount of the loan without even stating the alleged acts committed by the respondents which constituted or exhibited manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence. Further, there was no allegation that the respondents-government officials and the officers of TSMCI conspired and colluded with each other to defraud the government.  Wherefore, petition is dismissed for lack of merit.