HERMINO C. PRINCIPIO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. OSCAR BARRIENTOS, BANKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, and HILARIO SORIANO, respondents
G.R. No. 167025. December 19, 2005
Facts:
Hilario P. Soriano, president and stockholder of the Rural Bank of San Miguel Inc. (RBSMI) on June 25,2001 filed an affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman in violation of RA 3019 or the Anti Graft and Corrupt act against Herminio Principio, a bank examiner at the Supervisions and Examination Department IV of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The complaint lies on Principio’s report that the bank incurred legal reserve deficiencies of 18 million pesos from December 31, 1995 up to August 21, 1996 and 13 million pesos from August 22, 1996 to September 1, 1996; recommending a fine in the amount of P 2,538,000, which was adopted by the monetary board in its Resolution No. 724 dated June, 1997. The accused allegedly manifested partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence in his bank evaluation, allegedly caused undue injury on the part of the RBSMI.
The Ombudsman later issued a resolution finding probable cause for violation of RA 3019 which gave way to a criminal case against petitioner. Principio filed for a motion for reconsideration but the Office of the Ombudsman denied such motion on the ground that information had already been filed in court. He accordingly filed a motion with the trial court praying that the motion for reconsideration filed with the Office of the Ombudsman be given due course and thereafter, to rule that no probable cause exists. This was however denied by the trial court and in addition suspending him for 60 days. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals but was denied on the ground that certiorari is not the proper remedy for a denied motion to quash.
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ignoring the relevant law, jurisprudence, and evidence negating the Ombudsman’s finding of a probable cause.
Ruling:
The court ruled that an appeal or a petition for certiorari cannot be utilized as recourse on cases that a motion to quash is denied and the final order has not been rendered yet. In circumstances however that clearly demonstrate inadequacy of an appeal, the special civil action of certiorari may exceptionally be allowed which is obtained in the case at bar. The court ruled that the existing evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause against petitioner. The finding of the Office of the Ombudsman that the petitioner acted in bad faith was based on the alleged premature submission of the petitioner’s report coupled with the recommendation to impose a fine without factual legal basis. The Ombudsman cannot impute bad faith on the part of the petitioner on the assumption that he, together with other BSP officials, was part of a cabal to apply pressure on RBSMI to sell out by subjecting it to many impositions through the Monetary Board. Bad faith is never presumed while good faith is always presumed. Therefore, he who claims bad faith must prove it. The Ombudsman should have first determined the facts indicating bad faith instead of relying on the tenuous assumption that there was an orchestrated attempt to force RBSMI to sell out.
