Supreme Court ruling raises questions on Almirol divestment timeline — legal expert

• Courtesy of Supreme Court

A 2025 Supreme Court ruling that a company’s General Information Sheet (GIS) alone cannot establish stock ownership raises questions about the divestment timeline cited by the Ombudsman in its suspension order against DICT Undersecretary David Almirol Jr.

Atty. Daiza “Dada” Mercado, founder of LawyersPH.com, pointed to a critical legal distinction between the actual transfer of company shares and the date such changes appear in corporate filings.

“The question is not simply when the GIS was filed or notarized, but when the actual transfer of shares took place. These are different things, and the supporting corporate documents must be examined,” Mercado said.

In its October 21 order, the Ombudsman cited a Multisys Technologies Corporation GIS notarized on October 27, 2022, which still listed Almirol as a 49.21-percent shareholder. His name was removed in a subsequent GIS notarized on November 18, 2022.

However, in Lily C. Lopez v. Lolito S. Lopez, decided on April 21, 2025, the Supreme Court clarified that the stock and transfer book, rather than the GIS alone, is the primary basis for determining shareholders of record.

“The Supreme Court has already clarified that a GIS is not conclusive proof of stock ownership. What matters is the underlying evidence, including the stock and transfer book and documents establishing the transfer of shares,” Mercado explained.

Mercado emphasized that Almirol must establish through documentary evidence when he actually divested his shares to determine whether he complied with the divestment requirements.

“If Almirol claims that he divested his shares within the period required by law, he must prove it. The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically clear him. He needs to present the actual corporate records establishing when the transfer took place,” she said.

Under Republic Act No. 6713, public officials must divest conflicting business interests within 60 days of assuming office.

The Supreme Court ruling does not automatically establish Almirol’s compliance with the law. The actual date and validity of the share transfer, as well as any continuing financial interests, remain subject to examination.

The Ombudsman’s investigation also covers eight government contracts worth approximately ₱1.55 billion awarded to companies with financial relationships with Multisys between 2023 and 2025.

The Ombudsman emphasized that Almirol’s six-month preventive suspension is not a finding of administrative liability but a precautionary measure to protect its ongoing investigation.