CASE DIGEST
Quiogue v. Estacio, Jr.
G.R. No. 218530 (Resolution), [January 13,
2021]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Jurisdiction of
Ombudsman; RA 3019; Directors of GOCC; Bad faith
The Ombudsman's determination of
probable cause generally merits deference, unless there is a showing of grave
abuse of discretion. It is not enough to simply allege the presence of bad
faith. The facts themselves must demonstrate evident bad faith. To establish evident
bad faith or manifest partiality in cases of alleged violation of anti-graft
laws, there must be clear evidence of deliberate wrongdoing or corrupt motive,
rather than mere speculation or hypothesis.
In January 2007, Estacio was elected as
a member of the board of directors of Independent Realty Corporation Group of
Companies (IRC), recommended by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the
Chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). Despite his
term ending in June 2010, Estacio continued to serve on the IRC board until
December 2010 and concurrently held the position of Vice-President. Before his
term expired, Estacio and other IRC directors passed Resolution No. 2010-05-18
granting separation benefits to IRC officers, resulting in Estacio receiving
various emoluments. Quiogue, IRC's General Manager, filed a complaint before
the Ombudsman alleging that Estacio's receipt of these benefits caused undue
injury to the government, violating Sec. 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. Quiogue cited
Memorandum Circulars (MC) 40 and 66, limiting benefits for PCGG-nominated
directors of sequestered corporations. Estacio argued that he was not a public
officer, MCs 40 and 66 did not apply, and the benefits were granted in good
faith under the business judgment rule.
Whether or not the Ombudsman's
dismissal of the complaint against Estacio for lack of probable cause, in
violation of Sec. 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
NO.
There being no proof that the incidental benefits received by Estacio was done
with, or rooted in any corrupt intent, the Ombudsman's dismissal of the
complaint must be upheld. The Ombudsman had jurisdiction over Estacio's case,
as IRC, a government-owned or controlled corporation (GOCC), is subject to the
government's fiscal supervision. While the Ombudsman generally has discretion
to determine probable cause, exceptions exist for grave abuse of discretion.
However, the petition failed to demonstrate such abuse.
The board resolution which granted separation pay
benefits is a corporate act and Estacio is only one among the board of
directors of IRC. Also, a simple reading of the board resolution reveals that
the corporation has previously granted separation benefits to all employees of
IRC exclusive of its officers. Estacio's participation in the approval of the
resolution did not exhibit evident bad faith or manifest partiality, and the
benefits were granted in the ordinary course of IRC's corporate activities, not
to unduly favor Estacio.
Therefore, the Ombudsman's dismissal was upheld.
No comments:
Post a Comment