Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. (PASI) vs.

Lichauco
496 SCRA 588 (July 27, 2006)
Then DOTC Secretary Lagdameo, Jr. confirmed, by letter, the governments assignment
of Phil. orbital slots 161E and 153E to PASI for its Agila Satellites. PASI thereupon undertook
preparations for the launching, ownership, operation and management of its satellites by, among
other things, obtaining loans. In connection with the loan, PASI President de Guzman later
informed Landbank President and CEO Lapuz about the assignment of the orbital slots and
requested the banks confirmation of its participation in a club loan amounting to US$11
million, the proceeds of which would be applied to PASIs interim satellite. Lapuz sent a copy
of the letter to then Undersecretary Lichauco who denied the assignment of the 2 orbital slots to
PASI but that PASI is only getting 144E orbital slot. Subsequently, Lichauco issued a Notice of
Offer for several orbital slots including 153E. Claiming that the offer was made without its
knowledge and that another company was awarded for orbital slot 153E, PASI filed a complaint
for injunction, nullity and damages against Lichauco and the unknown awardee. A month
later PASI filed a complaint against Lichauco before the Office of the Ombudsman for violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Upon evaluation by the said office it found the
existence of a prejudicial question and recommended its dismissal. The recommendation was
approved by then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto.
Issues: 1. Whether there exists a PQ and, in the affirmative, 2. whether the dismissal of
the complaint on that account is proper.
Held: If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot 153E is, in the civil case,
declared valid for being within Lichaucos scope of authority to thus free her from liability for
damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of nor would there be basis for undue injury
claimed to have been suffered by PASI. The finding by the Ombudsman of the existence of a
prejudicial question is thus well taken.
As laid down in Yap vs. Paras, said rule directs that the proceedings may only be
suspended, not dismissed, and that it may be made only upon petition, and not at the instance of
the judge alone or as in this case, the investigating officer.
To give imprimatur to the Ombudsmans dismissal of petitioners complaint due to a
prejudicial question would only not run counter to the provision of Section 6 of Rule 111 of the
Rules of Court. It would sanction the extinguishments of criminal liability, if there be any,
through prescription under Article 89 vis--vis Articles 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi