ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 147326.April 18, 2001]

PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS vs. DOMING, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 18, 2001 .

G.R. No. 147326(Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, represented by Orlando L. Salvador vs. Panfilo O. Doming, et al .)

Petitioner assails the resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint against private respondents charging them with entering into a behest loan transaction, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.

The present controversy stemmed from a complaint filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, against private respondent.

In 1968, private respondent Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Mills, Inc. applied for a stand-by irrevocable and confirmed Letter of Credit in the aggregate amount of $22,109,412.00 to cover importation of sugar machinery and equipment on "turn-key" basis.The loan was approved on March 20, 1968 under PNB Board Resolution No. 710.The approved loan was amended and increased to $22,132,377,00 (P91,517,448.00) under PNB Board Resolution No. 505 dated May 8, 1968.

Petitioner alleged that the loan granted was without sufficient collateral and the firm itself had no sufficient capital to be entitled to the amount of guarantee loan considering that at the time the loan was granted, the firm's total assets amounted to only P105,166,209.58 with a collateral loan value of P84,132,968.00 as against the guarantee loan of P91,517,448.00, and its paid-up capital only amounted to P1,369,538.72 as of 1970.It was further alleged that Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Milling obtained additional guarantee loans and/or restructuring of accounts up to 1982 without sufficient collaterals and adequate capital to insure the viability of its operations and is ability to repay all its loans.Thus, it was averred, the account of Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Milling fell within the criteria of a behest loan based on the presence of three of the eight criteria mentioned under Memorandum Order No. 61, to wit: 1) it is undercollateralized; 2) the borrower corporation is under capitalized; and 3) non-feasibility of the project for which financing is being sought.

After conducting preliminary investigation, the Ombudsman dismissed the case for lack of sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.Subsequent motion for reconsideration likewise failed.

Thus, the instant petition wherein petitioner passes the buck to the Ombudsman for petitioner's shortcomings, alleging that the Ombudsman failed to act on petitioner's Manifestation and Request for Issuance of subpoena duces tecum for it to obtain certified true copies of certain board resolutions of the PNB relative to the loans granted to the Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Milling.

The Court is not convinced.As can be gleaned from the assailed resolution, the dismissal is not premised on the failure of petitioner to submit the required certified true copies of the earlier mentioned board resolutions, but the failure of petitioner to present other documents to enable the Ombudsman to verify its allegations.

Moreover, even as petitioner alleged that the subsequent loans were intended for the re-structuring of the past due loans, no data were given as to the current capitalization of the borrower-firm during the times that the subsequent loans were given.

The same is likewise true with the alleged collateral put up by the borrower-firm.No specific data was submitted as to what property were used as collateral by the borrower-firm to back up its loans.

It is incumbent upon petitioner to build up its case against private respondents as much as the Ombudsman is given the power to investigate and prosecute complaints filed before it.Hence, the court cannot fault the Ombudsman for petitioner's failure to build a strong case against private respondents for verily, this Court has ruled that it is beyond the ambit of the Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it (A lba vs. Nitorreda, 254 SCRA 753 [1996]).

WHEREFORE , petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED .

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE