Title
Supreme Court
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Mallari
Case
G.R. No. 183161
Decision Date
Dec 3, 2014
GSIS official Mallari dismissed for grave misconduct after endorsing a $10M bond with fake collateral, despite project and collateral deficiencies.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 183161)

Background of the Loan Application

On October 24, 1997, ECOBEL Land, Inc. applied for a medium-term loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) for the construction of a condominium, but the loan was denied due to insufficient collateral and lack of experience in property development amid the Asian financial crisis. Following this, ECOBEL sought a surety bond from GSIS to guarantee a loan from the Philippine Veterans Bank (PVB).

Processing of the Surety Bond

GSIS initially approved ECOBEL's bond application; however, the collateral offered—identified as a second mortgage—was found inadequate. Mallari, as the Senior Vice-President of GSIS, endorsed the bond application, which the GSIS Investment Committee subsequently approved on March 10, 1998, despite various procedural deficiencies, including the absence of essential documentation required under GSIS guidelines.

Cancellation of the Bond

The bond was ultimately canceled on February 12, 1999, following the discovery that the collateral, a land certificate from Lipa City, was fake. Despite the cancellation, ECOBEL proceeded to secure a loan using the bond, drawing substantial amounts without adherence to the stipulated conditions.

Investigation and Charges

In the aftermath, the Ombudsman initiated investigations based on findings of irregularities in the bond’s issuance, leading to administrative and criminal complaints against Mallari and other GSIS officials, identifying them for grave misconduct.

Rulings of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman found Mallari administratively liable for simple neglect of duty in 2005, later modifying this to grave misconduct, which resulted in his dismissal from service. Mallari's motions for reconsideration were denied, leading him to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

On June 6, 2008, the Court of Appeals exonerated Mallari, asserting that the Ombudsman failed to provide substantial evidence to justify the penalty of grave misconduct. The CA found that Mallari's signature on the bond did not lead to any legal obligation because PVB never formally agreed to be an obligee.

Grounds of Petition

The Office of the Ombudsman contested the CA’s ruling, claiming it disregarded established facts and laws. The Ombudsman highlighted the evidence supporting the guilty findings against Mallari concerning adherence to procedural requirements and grave negligence in duty.

Supreme Court's Resolution

The Supreme Court agreed with the Ombudsman, highlighting that substantial evidence demonstrated Mallari's involvement in the irregularities surrounding the bond issuance. The Court reinforced definitions of misconduct and em

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.