Case Digest (G.R. No. 167234)
Facts:
Teodoro C. Borlongan v. Rafael B. Buenaventura and Norberto C. Nazareno, G.R. No. 167234, February 27, 2006, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Teodoro C. Borlongan, then president of Urban Bank, Inc. (UBI), filed a complaint‑affidavit on June 26, 2001 against Rafael B. Buenaventura, Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), and Norberto C. Nazareno, President of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Petitioner alleged that when PDIC was appointed receiver of UBI by Monetary Board resolution dated April 26, 2000, respondents unlawfully favored Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and allowed LBP to collect on National Food Authority (NFA) promissory notes (P562,500,000) despite Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act). Petitioner relied on a document titled “Confirmation of Outright Purchase of Government Securities” dated April 25, 2000 and alleged violations of Sections 30 and 16 of RA 7653.
The complaint produced two Ombudsman proceedings: OMB‑0‑01‑0504 (a probable‑cause/criminal inquiry) and OMB‑ADM‑0327 (the administrative case). In an order dated July 1, 2002 the Ombudsman found Nazareno guilty of conduct prejudicial to the service and imposed six months and one day suspension, dismissing the complaint as to Buenaventura; that order was modified on July 22, 2002 to find Nazareno guilty only of simple misconduct with one month and one day suspension. Separately, on July 2, 2002 the Ombudsman dismissed OMB‑0‑01‑0504 for lack of probable cause. On August 21, 2002 the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint against Nazareno, adopting the lack‑of‑probable‑cause reasoning.
Petitioner sought relief in the Court of Appeals via certiorari (CA‑G.R. SP No. 79324). The Court of Appeals denied the petition in its Decision dated August 31, 2004 and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Resolution dated February 21, 2005. Petitioner then sought to file a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45. He paid docket and other lawful fees by motion for extension filed March 16, 2005, but died on April 11, 2005; his counsel filed the pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the appeal to the Supreme Court properly perfected when petitioner died before the verified petition was filed — i.e., can petitioner’s counsel file and verify a Rule 45 petition on behalf of a deceased client?
- Even if the appeal were deemed perfected, are petitioner’s substantive claims barred by the conclusiveness of the prior dispositions, and did respondents violate Sections 30 and 16 of ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)