The Court of Appeals has ordered the reinstatement of two high-ranking officials of Land Bank of the Philippines who were dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman for involvement in the allegedly anomalous sale of Meralco shares owned by the state-owned bank and the Social Security System to a private company several years ago.
In its decision, the CA’s Ninth Division through Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier granted the petition filed by LBP president Gilda Pico and senior vice president Carel Halog even as it reversed and set aside the Ombudsman decision dated Oct. 21, 2015.
“The complaint against petitioners… is ordered dismissed,” the appellate court said.
“Petitioners are ordered immediately reinstated to the posts from which they were respectively dismissed… The Ombudsman… and all persons acting in its behalf are immediately and permanently enjoined from implementing its decision,” the CA ruled.
Associate Justices Celia Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Sadang concurred with the ruling.
The anti-graft body had found Pico and Halog, along with several SSS officials liable for graft for approving the block sale of its Meralco shares worth P5.699 billion to Global 5000 with a downpayment of only P1.133 billion.
The Ombudsman held that the LBP gave unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to Global, a firm with doubtful financial capacity and no track record to undertake the sale.
Records show that the LBP officials entered into a Stock Purchase Agreement (SPA) without any negotiations and that it was undertaken in a matter of 10 days.
In its resolution, the Ombudsman found Pico, Halog ang several others guilty of administrative charges, and ordered their dismissal from service.
Siding with the petitioners, the CA ruled that Pico and Halog should be reinstated because their “role in the execution of the SPA is not one that tarnishes the image and integrity of the LBP as a banking institution.”
“The SPA was reasonable as it was framed, possibly no longer reasonable now, due to the seven years that have passed. But that is not the issue regarding petitioners’ present plight of having been dismissed from the service. In this present opportunity, this court will act where fairness and rightful compassion are,” the appellate court stressed.
