G.R. No. 201069 , June 16, 2021
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Petitioner, vs. Office of the Ombudsman and Benjamin M. Jamorabo, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against its former Bank Officer I, respondent Benjamin M. Jamorabo, for obtaining an unsecured loan of P200,000 from the Rural Bank of Kiamba, Sarangani, Inc. (RBKSI) on July 17, 2006, while he was part of the team conducting the bank’s regular examination from July 6 to 22, 2006. The loan was approved without the normal requirements of collateral, proof of income, or credit investigation. Jamorabo issued post-dated checks for amortization, but several checks were dishonored due to insufficient funds or a closed account. In the loan documents, Jamorabo indicated his wife as the principal borrower and himself as co-maker, and he signed his wife’s name. The loan was fully paid only after the complaint was filed. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, ruling that violation of Section 27(d) of Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act) and BSP Office Order No. 423 did not entail criminal liability, and that Jamorabo could no longer be held administratively liable as he had retired from government service on December 31, 2008, before the complaint was filed. The Ombudsman also found no prima facie case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) as the BSP failed to prove undue injury, given the loan’s full payment.

ISSUE

1. What liabilities arise from a violation of R.A. No. 7653 , Section 27(d)?
2. Can Jamorabo still be held administratively liable even if the complaint was filed after his retirement from government service?
3. Is there a prima facie case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against Jamorabo?

RULING

1. Violation of R.A. No. 7653 , Section 27(d) gives rise to both administrative and criminal liability. The provision prohibits personnel of the BSP’s supervising and examining departments from borrowing from a bank under their supervision or examination. Section 36 of the same Act provides the penalty for violations: a fine of not less than P50,000 nor more than P200,000, or imprisonment of not less than 2 years nor more than 10 years, or both. The Ombudsman’s ruling that it only gives rise to administrative liability was a grave abuse of discretion.
2. Yes, Jamorabo can still be held administratively liable. Retirement from service does not preclude the institution of administrative proceedings for acts done during a government employee’s tenure. The Court has consistently held that the jurisdiction of the disciplining authority is anchored on the employee’s incumbency at the time of the act’s commission, not at the time of the filing of the complaint. Administrative liability is not extinguished by retirement.
3. No, there is no prima facie case for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 . The elements of the offense are: a) the accused is a public officer; b) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer’s official, administrative, or judicial functions; c) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and d) the act caused undue injury to any party, including the government. While Jamorabo was a public officer who acted with evident bad faith by securing a loan during an examination and falsifying his wife’s signature, the element of undue injury was not established. The loan was fully paid, and the BSP failed to demonstrate any actual injury or damage to the government. The mere violation of the prohibition, by itself, does not constitute undue injury.
The petition was partially meritorious. The Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaint for violation of R.A. No. 7653 , Section 27(d) was set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed the Ombudsman to file the appropriate criminal information against Jamorabo for said violation. However, the Ombudsman’s finding of no probable cause for violation of R.A. No. 3019 , Section 3(e) was sustained.