Back

Teves vs. Office of the Ombudsman

MARGARITO B. TEVES, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY DAYID A. LUCERO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 238133] CYRIL C. DEL CALLAR, ALBERT C. BALINGIT, GEORGE J. REGALADO, AND ROBERTO S. VERGARA, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY DAYID A. LUCERO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 238138] GILDA E. PICO AND CAREL D. HALOG, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY DAYID A. LUCERO, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 237558 | 2023-04-26

D E C I S I O N
 
LEONEN, SAJ.:
 
Mere disadvantage to the government is not sufficient to establish probable cause for violation of Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court will not substitute its discretion when sound business judgment was employed in the negotiation of a government contract that is not manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to its interest.

This Court resolves the consolidated Petitions for Certiorari[1] filed by Margarito B. Teves (Teves), then secretary of finance and ex-officio chairperson of Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank),[2] and its board of directors, namely Gilda E. Pico...