GR 187794; (November, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187794 , November 28, 2018
Presidential Commission on Good Government, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against numerous respondents, including former officials of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and stockholders of Pioneer Glass Manufacturing Corporation. The PCGG alleged that the series of loans and guarantees extended by DBP to Pioneer Glass from 1963 to 1977, which eventually led to the corporation’s insolvency and its dacion en pago to DBP in 1978, constituted behest loans. The PCGG contended the loans were granted under questionable terms, favored the borrowers, and were influenced by political considerations, notably citing a marginal note from then-First Lady Imelda Marcos on a related letter.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence. It found that the PCGG failed to substantiate its allegations that the loans met the established criteria for behest loans. The Ombudsman held that the loans were granted in the ordinary course of DBP’s business, following standard procedures and supported by board resolutions and feasibility studies. The PCGG filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the PCGG’s complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal. The Court emphasized that the determination of probable cause is an executive function within the Ombudsman’s discretion. Judicial review of such determinations is limited to checking for grave abuse of discretion, which implies a capricious, whimsical, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The Court found no such abuse. The Ombudsman meticulously evaluated the evidence against the established indicators of a behest loan, such as under-collateralization, approval by non-officials, and lack of feasibility studies. The records showed DBP’s loans followed its regular approval process, were backed by board resolutions, and were secured by collateral. The mere existence of a marginal note from Imelda Marcos, without proof it influenced the loan approvals, was insufficient to overturn the Ombudsman’s factual findings. The Ombudsman is in a better position to assess the evidence, and its conclusion of insufficient evidence was supported by the record and not arrived at arbitrarily.