MARGARITO B. TEVES, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY DAYID A. LUCERO.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding probable cause, it is respectfully recommended that respondents GILDA E. PICO, ROBERTO S. VERGARA, CAREL D. HALOG, MARGARITO B. TEVES, MARIANITO D. ROQUE, MA. PATRICIA RUALO-BELLO, EDUARDO N. NOLASCO, ALBERT C. BALINGIT, GEORGE J. REGALADO and CYRIL C. DEL CALLAR be indicted for violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019. Let the corresponding Information against them be filed with the appropriate court. It is respectfully recommended that the charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 against GILDA E. PICO, ROBERTO S. VERGARA, CAREL D. HALOG, MARGARITO B. TEVES, MARIANITO D. ROQUE, MA. PATRICIA RUALO-BELLO, EDUARDO N. NOLASCO, ALBERT C. BALINGIT, GEORGE J. REGALADO, CYRIL C. DEL CALLAR, INIGO M. ZOBEL, ROBERTO V. ONGPIN, JOSELITO CAMPOS, JR., CARMELO EDEN P. LAGAO and RHOGEL S. GANDINGAN be dismissed for lack of probable cause. The complaint against respondent OMBRE S. HAMSIRANI is dismissed on account of his death. SO ORDERED . [19] (Emphasis in the original) The Office of the Ombudsman ruled that the specific performance case is not a prejudicial question because its resolution is immaterial in its finding of probable cause. [20] It dismissed the charge for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 because it was not shown that the Land Bank officers caused undue injury or gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or privilege since the Share Purchase Agreement was not consummated and the Meralco shares remained with Land Bank, thus, no actual damage to Land Bank was proven. [21] There was also no evidence that the Meralco shares are included in the scope of COA Circular No. 89-296 which requires public bidding. Thus, it presumed the sale to be regular. [22] However, the Office of the Ombudsman found that all the elements of violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019 are present. [23] The non­ implementation of the Share Purchase Agreement is immaterial because the law states that entering into a manifestly and grossly disadvantageous contract is punishable. It is the commission of the act, and not its effect, which is material. [24] The Office of the Ombudsman pointed out that the Land Bank officers failed to observe the highest degree of diligence when it entered into a PHP 4.193 billion transaction with Global 5000, which was then only IO months old, without a track record and with only PHP 62.5 million paid up capital. It did not appreciate that Global 5000 is a wholly owned subsidiary of San Miguel Corporation. [25] The Office of the Ombudsman also drew attention to a provision in the Share Purchase Agreement giving Global 5000 the right to Meralco dividends upon tender of 20% down payment. Fu11hermore, under the Share Purchase Agreement, all cash dividends declared by Meralco prior to full payment of the third installment shall be applied as partial payment to the outstanding balance. During the installment period, Land Bank lost the opportunity to reinvest the income from its dividend e