(BOTH FORMER MANAGERS OF PNB DUMAGUETE BRANCH, DUMAGUETE CITY), RAMON V. ESCAÑO, EVELINA TEVES, HERMINIO V. TEVES, LORENZO G. TEVES, CATALINO NOEL, AND LAMBERTO MACIAS (ALL FORMER OFFICERS OF TOLONG SUGAR MILLING COMPANY, INC.).

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the instant criminal complaint for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of probable cause. SO RESOLVED. [5] PCGG moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by the Ombudsman in its Order dated April 21, 2009. Hence, this petition for certiorari . [6] The Issue WHETHER THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENTS FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE. The PCGG claims that there was no dispute that the respondents took part in the approval of the questioned loan. It continues that the alleged specific acts by the respondents and the specific details concerning their criminal design are matters of evidence on the motive of the offenders which are not essential elements of the offenses charged, and therefore, matters that are best threshed out during a full blown trial. The PCGG also disputes the Ombudsman's findings that the PNB Board of Directors took proper precautionary measures in approving the subject loan. It insists that the PNB Board should not have approved the loan stressing that the two tracts of land offered as security were not registered in the name of the borrower, thus, TSMCI could not have validly constituted a mortgage thereon; that one of the tracts of land, specifically, the 3,170 hectares of land covered by TD Nos. 04118, 04115, and 04129, has been verified to be within the unclassified public forest of Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental; and that the mere fact that the loan was also secured by the very machinery and equipment purchased, and structures and other improvements to be erected and/or installed, using the proceeds of the loan, is violative of the legal requirement under Article 2085 of the Civil Code, that the pledger or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged. The Commission asserts that had the respondents-PNB Directors truly exercised proper caution to ensure repayment of the loan, they would have realized that the borrower was a newly formed corporation, undercapitalized, and offered unacceptable collaterals. The Court's Ruling As already stated, the PCGG imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman in dismissing the criminal complaints for violation of Section 3(e) and (g) of R.A. No. 3019 against the respondents. Where a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court alleges grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner should establish that the respondent court or tribunal acted in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its jurisdiction as to be equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The reason is that the term "grave abuse of discretion" has a specific meaning. The term is not an amorphous concept that may easily be manipulated to suit one's purpose. [7] In a plethora of cases, [8] the Court has defined the term "grave abuse of discretion"