[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 (Alba vs. Nitorreda, 254
SCRA 753 [1996]).
WHEREFORE, petition is dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court