Begay v. Office of the Special Investigation
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Willy Fred U. Begay, engaged in real estate, obtained multiple loans from the Rural Bank of San Luis (Pampanga), Inc. (the Bank) starting in January 2009, initially for P6,000,000.00, secured by properties in Benguet. Over time, his obligations escalated, and he obtained additional loans, sometimes through intermediaries or alleged attorneys-in-fact, to cover existing debts, charges, and for new projects, including a memorial park in Tarlac. The Bank allegedly requested these intermediaries to circumvent the Single Borrower's Limit. Begay claims the Bank failed to release previously mortgaged properties and apply loan proceeds as agreed, leading to his total obligation ballooning to P57,500,000.00. The Bank, however, maintained that loans taken by intermediaries were separate and personal to them, not violating the Single Borrower's Limit. Ultimately, the Bank initiated extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings on Begay's mortgaged properties due to his failure to settle his obligations. Procedural History: In response to the Bank's actions, Begay filed a Petition for Annulment of Promissory Notes, Mortgages, Public Auction Sale and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction against the Bank and its officers. Subsequently, on August 12, 2013, Begay filed an administrative complaint against the Bank and its officers with the Office of the Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), alleging violations of banking laws and other statutes. The OSI dismissed Begay's complaint on May 29, 2014, finding that he failed to establish a prima facie case. Begay's motion for reconsideration was denied by the OSI on November 15, 2014. Aggrieved, Begay filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA dismissed his petition on May 26, 2017, ruling that he availed of the wrong remedy and failed to perfect his appeal seasonably under Rule 43. The CA denied Begay's motion for reconsideration on February 13, 2018. The Petition: Petitioner Willy Fred U. Begay filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the May 26, 2017 Decision and the February 13, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Begay argues that the CA erred in ruling that he should have appealed the OSI Resolutions under Rule 43 instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. He also contends that the CA erred in failing to rule that the OSI committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing his complaint. The Supreme Court, however, found that Begay availed of the wrong remedy by filing a Rule 65 petition before the CA, as his appropriate recourse was to refile his complaint before the OSI with sufficient evidence, given the dismissal was without prejudice. The Court also affirmed the OSI's finding that no prima facie case was established, noting that factual issues raised were inappropriate for a Rule 45 petition.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that petitioner should have appealed the Resolutions of the OSI pursuant to Section 4, Rule 43 of the Revised Rules of Court instead of filing a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the same Rules. Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to rule that the OSI committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions providing that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case against the respondents in this case.
Ruling
The Petition is dismissed. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the administrative complaint filed by Begay before the OSI falls under BSP Circular No. 477, Series of 2005. Under this circular, the OSI conducts a preliminary investigation to determine if a prima facie case exists. If no prima facie case is established, the OSI shall dismiss the complaint without prejudice or take appropriate action. The dismissal of the complaint by the OSI for failure to establish a prima facie case was a dismissal without prejudice. Jurisprudence distinguishes between a dismissal with prejudice, which bars refiling, and a dismissal without prejudice, which allows refiling. Therefore, Begay's plain, speedy, and adequate remedy was to refile his complaint before the OSI with sufficient evidence to support his allegations. A special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy of last resort, available only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since Begay had the remedy of refiling his complaint, his resort to a Rule 65 Petition before the CA was improper and thus correctly dismissed by the CA. On grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the OSI. Factual findings of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise are afforded great weight by the courts and are conclusive in the absence of substantial showing of error. The OSI's conclusion that there was no prima facie case against the respondents was founded on substantial evidence, clearly expressing the grounds for dismissal. The issues raised by Begay regarding loan ownership, total loan amounts, violation of the Single Borrower's Limit, and unsafe or unsound banking practices involve factual questions that are outside the coverage of a Rule 45 petition, which is limited to errors of law. The Court is not a trier of facts and does not re-evaluate evidence already considered in prior proceedings, especially when no exceptions to this rule apply. Therefore, the dismissal of the Petition for Certiorari by the CA was justified.
Main Doctrine
A Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail resolutions of the Office of the Special Investigation (OSI) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) that dismiss a complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, as the dismissal is without prejudice and the complainant has the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy of refiling the complaint with sufficient evidence.