Marcelo G. Ganaden, Oscar B. Mina, Jose M. Bautista, and Ernesto H. Narciso, Jr. v.

Honorable Office of the Ombudsman and Robert K. Humiwat GR Nos. 169359-61 (June 1, 2011) Villarama, Jr. J. Bar Subject: Nature: Petition for Certiorari, prayer for issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction Quick Facts: A group of employees of NPC District IV Cagayan Valley filed a complaint against petitioners for allegedly for the following offenses: printing and sale of raffle tickets using NPC resources under the direction of Ganaden making it appear to be the project of the Employees Association faking Pakyaw Labor where in fact there was no such entry in the Security Logbook influenced a certain Lazaro to agree that the volume of the soil to be hauled at the Tuguegarao substation be increased, having excess payment given to him loaded gas for NPC vehicle into personal vehicle reassigned employees based on a fictitious order purchased tires for personal use withrawal and delivery of ceramic tiles from substation to his house which was undergoing renovation The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution, finding the charge that petitioners used NPC resources for printing and selling raffle tickets and misappropriating NPC resources (gasoline, tires, ceramic tiles) devoid of merit. However, on the other charges, the Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon found probable cause to charge petitioners with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Petitioners argue that the complaints filed against them are purely intended for harassment and done in retaliation for the reorganization Ganaden did when he was NPC Area Manager. Petitioners aver that the Ombudsman blatantly disregarded the Comprehensive Audit Report which showed that the complaints lack factual basis, and that they disregarded several affidavits thus committing evidentiary oversights. Issue/Held: WON the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its Joint Resolution finding probable cause to indict petitioners for alleged violation of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. NO Ratio: Petition is bereft of merit. Jurisprudence has establish the rules on the determination of probable cause. In Galario v. Office of the Ombudsman (Mindanao), the Court held: [A] finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed and there is enough reason to believe that it was committed by the accused. It need not be based on clear and convincing evidence of guilt, neither on evidence establishing absolute certainty of guilt. A finding of probable cause merely binds over the suspect to stand trial. It is not a pronouncement of guilt. The term does not mean actual and positive cause nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. x x x. Probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. (Italics in the original.) All these allegations in the complaint coupled with the statements of several key witnesses, among others, all point towards some kind of irregularity in the performance of public works. Based on the assessment of the Office of the Ombudsman, there is sufficient reason to believe that a violation of R.A. No. 3019 has been committed. Also, based on the evidence presented, there is sufficient reason to believe that the accused public officials are probably guilty of the violation. It is worth stressing that the Ombudsmans finding of probable cause does not touch on the issue of guilt or innocence of the accused. It is not the function of the Office of the Ombudsman to rule on such issue. All that the Office of the Ombudsman did was to weigh the evidence presented together with the counter-allegations of the accused and determine if there was enough reason to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused are probably guilty thereof. Grave abuse of discretion is defined as capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. In the case at bar, the Office of the Ombudsman properly conducted investigation and received the evidence on the allegations and counter-allegations. There was no showing of any capricious, whimsical, and arbitrary action or inaction.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Shemberg Biotech Corporation and Benson Dakay GR No. 162291 (August 11, 2010) Villarama Jr, J. Bar Subject: Nature: Petition for review on Certiorari under Rule 45 Quick Facts: Respondent Shemberg Biotech Corporation (SBC), a domestic corporation which manufactures carrageenan from seaweeds, filed a petition for the approval of its rehabilitation plan and appointment of a rehabilitation receiver before the RTC. The RTC issued a stay order and petitioner Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) filed its opposition to SBC's petition. After initial hearings, RTC issued the assailed Order which gave due course to SBC' petition. RTC found that SBC complied with the conditions necessary. It was also satisfied of the merit of the petition and noted that SBC's business appears viable since it has a market for its product. A sufficient breathing spell, accdg to the RTC may help SBC settle its debts. The RTC further said that it will reflect on the issue raised by SBC's creditors that the rehabilitation plan is not feasible, upon submission by the rehabilitation receiver of its recommendation. BPI filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied. Hence the present petition. Issues/ Held: 1.WON CA focused its discussion on the procedural matters. NO 2.Ratio: As stated by the RTC, it will reflect on the issue on the viability of the rehabilitation plans upon submission by the Receiver of his recommendation. BPI's imputation has no basis at all. 3.WON the rehabilitation plan amounts to taking private property without just compensation and due process of law. NO 4.Ratio: CA has sufficient basis to rule that the case is already moot. a ruling on the propriety of the RTCs directive in its October 12, 2001 Order that the Rehabilitation Receiver submit his recommendation would have no more practical value since the recommendation was already submitted. 5.WON the RTC exercised its rehabilitation power whimsically, arbitrarily and despotically by eliminating penalties and reducing interests amounting to millions. NO 6.Ratio: RTC did not approve the debt-to -equity conversion., nor did the CA. In fact, the RTC did not even order conversion of the debt-to-equity in its decisin approving with modification of SBC's rehabilitation plan. 7.WON RTC exercised its rehabilitation power whimsically, arbitrarily and despotically by eliminating penalties and reducing interests amounting to millions. NO 8.Ratio: These are improper attempts to appeal again the RTC decision. The denial of BPI's petition has become final and entry of judgment has been made. BPI has even admitted that the rehabilitation plan is already being implemented. 9.WON the Interim Rules of Corporate Recovery is unconstitutional insofar as it alters or modifies and expands the existing law on rehabilitation contrary to the principle that rules of procedure cannot modify or affect substantive rights. NO 10.Ratio: BPI failed in its burden in proving this assertion. The Court notes that BPI itself opposes its own stand by invoking Sec. 27, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules to support its prayer that he rehabilitation procedures be declared terminated. In addition, the challenge on the constitutionality of the Interim Rules is a new and belated theory that the Court should not even entertain. It was not raised on the earliest opportunity. The rule is that when issues of constitutionality are raised, the Court can exercise its power of judicial review only if the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest possible opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case. 11.WON BPI's prayer that the petition for rehabilitation be ordered dismissed and terminated be granted. NO 12.Ratio: To dismiss the petition for rehabilitation would be to reverse improperly the final course of that petition; the petition was granted by the RTC and was affirmed with finality, and the plan is now being implemented. In fact, BPI did not ask the CA to terminate the rehabilitation proceedings. Aside from being another new issue, its resolution involves factual matters such as: (1) whether there was failure to achieve the desired targets or goals as set forth in the rehabilitation plan; (2) whether there was failure of the debtor (SBC) to perform its obligations under the plan; (3) whether the rehabilitation plan may no longer be implemented in accordance with its terms, conditions, restrictions or assumptions; or (4) whether there was successful implementation of the rehabilitation plan. The Court is not at liberty to consider these factual matters for the first time.

WHEREFOE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Carpio-Morales, (Chairperson), Brion, Bersamin, Abad, JJ,, concur.