THE Supreme Court (SC) has rejected the appeal of Surigao de Sur Rep. Prospero Pichay Jr. seeking to reverse his conviction by the Office of the Ombudsman, Sandiganbayan and the Court of Appeals in connection with the purchase of the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) of more than 440, 000 shares of Express Savings Bank Incorporated (ESBI).
The First Division of the SC also affirmed Pichay’s disqualification from public office as it ruled that he had no legal basis to question the Office of the Ombudsman’s decision to perpetually bar him from government employment and public office.
In junking Pichay’s petition, the First Division of the high court debunked his claim that he was denied due process and the right to a speedy trial when he was found guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of LWUA when he authorized, as acting chairman, the purchase of 445,337 ESBI shares, which equates to the agency’s 60 percent voting stock amounting to P80 million, without the approval of the Monetary Board.
“As the findings of fact of the Ombudsman and the CA reveal, as supported by the documents made available before this Court, Pichay and the members of the Board of Trustees of LWUA acquired a majority stake in ESBI despite the absence of the necessary prior approval as required by law and regulations,” the SC’s 40-page resolution promulgated on November 11, 2021 but only made public on January 14 said.
“Pichay nevertheless comes before this Court, claiming violation of his right to due process.
He argues that the complaint did not raise allegation pertaining to the requirement of presidential approval under AO 59 and the approval of the Monetary Board, hence, he could not be held administratively guilty for these acts. We disagree,” the SC also said.
The high court said that contrary to Pichay’s claim that he was denied due process, he was actually given the opportunity to respond to the complaint pertaining to the absence of prior approval of the President under AO59 and the Monetary Board.
“As evaluated by the Office of the Ombudsman, the acts complained of amounted to grave misconduct,” the court said.
The SC also held that the “flagrant disregard of the rules” committed by Pichay despite being knowledgeable of the requirements for obtaining ESBI shares was evident, pointing out that the absence of a definite approval as required by the banking laws and regulations should have prompted him to raise concerns with the LWUA Board before proceeding with the acquisition of the bank.
“However, instead of raising such concern, he allowed the LWUA Board, under his leadership, to continue with the negotiations and eventual acquisition of ESBI. This repeated disregard of the rules equates to a grave misconduct,” the SC ruled.
In affirming the anti-graft court’s finding of probable cause against Pichay, the SC ruled the Sandiganbayan had sufficient proof that he was guilty of the offense for which he was charged and that there is nothing irregular in the said finding.
“What is apparent in this case is the failure of Pichay to obtain the requisite approval of the Monetary Board, which already satisfies the requirement of probable cause,” the SC said.
Aside from the lack of approval from the Monetary Board, the SC said the LWUA’s purchase of the ESBI shares also violated Section 15 of the General Appropriations Act which prevented the use of government funds as investments or deposits to any private banking institution.
