Case Digest (G.R. No. 201069)
Facts:
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Office of the Ombudsman and Benjamin M. Jamorabo, G.R. No. 201069, June 16, 2021, First Division, Gaerlan, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) filed a complaint dated August 11, 2009 before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Benjamin M. Jamorabo, a former Bank Officer I assigned to the BSP’s Supervision and Examination Sector (SES). The complaint alleged that while Jamorabo was conducting the regular examination of the Rural Bank of Kiamba, Sarangani, Inc. (RBKSI) from July 6–22, 2006, he obtained an unsecured P200,000 loan from RBKSI in contravention of R.A. No. 7653, Section 27(d) and BSP Office Order No. 423 (s. 2002).
The Ombudsman docketed the matter as a criminal case and ordered preliminary investigation: Jamorabo was required to submit a counter-affidavit on November 17, 2009 and complied on December 10, 2009. In a February 9, 2011 Resolution, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, ruling that a violation of Section 27(d) entailed administrative, not criminal, liability and that Jamorabo could no longer be administratively sanctioned because he had retired effective December 31, 2008. The Ombudsman also found no violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e) because the loan was ultimately paid and no undue injury to government was shown; it additionally faulted certain RBKSI officers for lapses in diligence. BSP moved for reconsideration but the Ombudsman denied it in a July 28, 2011 Order.
On April 3, 2012 BSP filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court challenging the Ombudsman’s February 9, 2011 Resolution and July 28, 2011 Order. The Court required comments on June 18, 2012; only the Ombudsman filed comments. BSP filed its reply on April 24, 2013. During the proceedings the Court noted that Jamorabo had migrated to Canada on April 14, 2010 and dispensed with his comment. The Supreme Court framed the dispute around whether (1) violation of Section 27(d) gives rise to criminal and/o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does a violation of R.A. No. 7653, Section 27(d) give rise to criminal liability, administrative liability, or both?
- Can Jamorabo still be held administratively liable where the complaint was filed after his retirement from government service?
- Is there a prima facie case to charge Jamorabo with violation of R.A. No....(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)