Case Digest (G.R. No. 135048)
Facts:
Jerome R. Canlas v. Gonzalo Benjamin A. Bongolan, Elmer Nonnatus A. Cadano, Melinda M. Adriano, Rafael P. Delos Santos, Corazon G. Corpuz, Danilo C. Javier, and Jimmy B. Sarona, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.On March 19, 1993 the National Housing Authority and R-II Builders, Inc. entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to implement the Smokey Mountain Development and Reclamation Project; the Project included Manila Harbour Centre. To finance Phase 1 the parties adopted an asset-backed securitization arrangement (Trust Agreement, Sept. 26, 1994) whereby the trustee (initially Philippine National Bank, later Planters Development Bank) issued Participation Certificates guaranteed by Home Guaranty Corporation (Home Guaranty). A Contract of Guaranty permitted the trustee to assign the asset pool to Home Guaranty if guaranty obligations were called.
When Participation Certificates matured on October 24, 2002 and the asset pool could not pay, Planters Bank called Home Guaranty’s guaranty; Home Guaranty’s Board approved the call (Feb. 6, 2003) and Planters conveyed the asset pool to Home Guaranty (July 30, 2004). Home Guaranty published notices of sale (2006, 2006 again); Alfred Wong King Wai offered to buy two Harbour Centre lots and, after negotiation and a 5% cash discount, purchased them for P384,715,800.00 (P13,300/sqm) on July 21, 2008; sale was reviewed by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel.
On October 16, 2009 Jerome R. Canlas filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman against Home Guaranty officers—Bongolan, Cadano, Adriano, Delos Santos, Corpuz, Javier, and Sarona—alleging grave misconduct and violation of RA 3019, Sec. 3(g) for executing a contract grossly disadvantageous to the government. Canlas compared the sale price to prior and adjacent sales and submitted an appraisal (EValue, July 2008) to claim government losses of P121,489,200.00 to P309,508,200.00.
The Home Guaranty Officers defended that Home Guaranty acted within its charter powers under RA 8763 and its Revised Disposition Guidelines (Office Order No. 066), that the sale exceeded zonal valuation and minimum disposition values (Net Effective Return and Severity of Loss methods), and that due process (two notices, referral to Government Corporate Counsel) was observed. Some officers denied participation or showed they acted under Board resolution or delegated authority.
The Office of the Ombudsman, by Decision dated October 12, 2010, dismissed Canlas’s complaint for lack of proof the transaction was disadvantageous and held the Board—not individual officers—was primarily responsible. Canlas’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Dec. 29, 2010). He appealed to the Court of Appeals, which in its August 11, 2011 Decision (and Nov. 29, 2011 Resolution denying reconsideration) affirmed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Jerome R. Canlas have legal standing to file the administrative complaint and to pursue this petition?
- Is the Office of the Ombudsman’s October 12, 2010 Decision exonerating respondents appealable?
- Was the sale price of the properties manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government (i.e., unreasonable)?
- Were the Home Guaranty officers the proper parties to be charged for the sale?
- Can the Home Guaranty officers be administratively liable for grave misconduct?
- Did the contract of sale violate RA 3019, Sec. 3(g) as a contract ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)