Case Digest: Reyna & Soria vs. COA

G.R. No. 167219 : February 8, 2011




The Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) was engaged in a cattle-financing program wherein loans were granted to various cooperatives. Cooperatives who wish to avail of a loan under the program must fill up a Credit Facility Proposal (CFP) which will be reviewed by the Ipil Branch. One of the conditions stipulated in the CFP is that prior to the release of the loan, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the supplier of the cattle, Remad Livestock Corporation (REMAD), and the cooperative, shall have been signed. The MOA shall further provide for a buy-back agreement, technology, transfer, provisions for biologics requirement and technical visits and replacement of sterile, unproductive stocks.

The Ipil Branch granted six loans to four cooperative borrowers. Three checks were issued by the Ipil Branch to REMAD to serve as advanced payment for the cattle. REMAD, however, failed to supply the cattle on the dates agreed upon.

Petitioners, were made respondents in a Complaint filed by the COA Regional Office No. IX, Zamboanga City, before the Office of the Ombudsman for Gross Negligence, Violation of Reasonable Office Rules and Regulations, Conduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Bank and Giving Unwarranted Benefits to persons, causing undue injury in violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.


Whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring the repayment stipulation proscribed by Section 103 of PD 1445.

Whether or not the COA committed grave abuse of discretion for holding petitioners administratively liable.


The petition lacks merit.


First Issue:

In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, questions of fact cannot be raised in a petition for certiorari, under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court. The office of the petition for certiorari is not to correct simple errors of judgment; any resort to the said petition under Rule 64, in relation to Rule 65, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to the resolution of jurisdictional issues. Accordingly, since the validity of the prepayment scheme is inherently a question of fact, the same should no longer be looked into by this Court.

Second Issue:

Petitioners cannot rely on their supposed observance of the procedure outlined in the Manual on Lending Operations when clearly the same provides that “payment to the dealer shall be made after presentation of reimbursement documents (delivery/official receipts/purchase orders) acknowledged by the authorized LBP representative that the same has been delivered.” Petitioners have not made a case to dispute the COA's finding that they violated the foregoing provision. Any presumption, therefore, that public officials are in the regular performance of their public functions must necessarily fail in the presence of an explicit rule that was violated.

Petition is DENIED.