G.R. No. 187794 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended that the instant complaint against herein respondents for violation of Section 3 (e) and (g) [of] Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence. [37] The Presidential Commission on Good Government moved for the reconsideration [38] of the Office of the Ombudsman's Resolution, asserting that the bulk of Pioneer Glass' security for the approved loans and guarantees were depreciating assets like buildings and improvements, transportation equipment, and office equipment. Thus, by the time the loans would have matured, the value of the depreciable assets would have greatly diminished, leaving virtually no security for Pioneer Glass' loan obligations and Development Bank's guarantees. [39] The Presidential Commission on Good Government reiterated that Pioneer Glass was undercapitalized and that its loan and guarantee agreements were undercollateralized, leading to the damage and prejudice of the government. [40] On May 16, 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman denied [41] the motion. It stated that the proffered evidence proves the claim of Development Bank officials that they exercised sound business judgment and that they followed the established banking practices in dealing with Pioneer Glass. Furthermore, the Office of the Ombudsman emphasized that there was no evidence presented to support the allegation that Pioneer Glass and Development Bank conspired to cause injury to the government. [42] On June 4, 2009, petitioner Presidential Commission on Good Government filed its Petition for Certiorari [43] before this Court. It asserts that Pioneer Glass was undercapitalized and that the loans granted to it were undercollateralized. Thus, Development Bank's repeated accommodation of Pioneer Glass, by approving its loan applications and guaranteeing its other debt obligations, showed manifest partiality or gross inexcusable negligence. [44] Petitioner points out that the bulk of Pioneer Glass' securities and guarantees were depreciating assets and future assets. Considering that the loan agreements spanned a long period of time, it maintains that when the loans matured, the value of the securities would have greatly diminished, making the loans effectively unsecured. Furthermore, it asserts that the law prohibits future properties from becoming the object of contracts of mortgage, inasmuch as there was no way to validly appraise them when Pioneer Glass' loan application was processed. [45] Petitioner claims that the question of whether or not Development Bank exercised sound business judgment in line with acceptable banking practices is ultimately factual in nature and should have been threshed out before a trial court. It asserts that public respondent Office of the Ombudsman should not have prematurely ruled on such matter and used it as one of its bases for denying the complaint. [46] Petitioner un