THE Office of the Ombudsman has won a reversal of a 2024 decision by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (QC RTC) Branch 224 that dismissed a graft case it filed in 2014 against officials of the Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corp. (Quedancor).
In a 20-page decision penned by Associate Justice Georgina D. Hidalgo, the anti-graft court’s Seventh Division set aside the ruling of QC RTC presiding judge Zita Marie M. Atienza-Fajardo ordering the Ombudsman’s case reinstated and remanded back to the RTC Branch 224 for further proceedings.
Associate Justices Ma. Theresa Dolores C. Gomez-Estoesta and Zaldy V. Trespeses concurred.
The dismissed case involves an alleged anomalous approval of a P3 million loan to one Luisito Vinuya in 2006 backed by insufficient collateral worth only P365,120, according to prosecutors.
Named defendants were Quedancor NCR Regional Assistant Vice President Divino Duban, Quedancor Operations Officer Ray Joven, Collection Officer Roel Suarez, accountant Annalyn Hobayan, District Supervisor and Quedancor Operations Officer Joel Gagelonia, Regional Unit Head Rhona Marie Asuncion Resuello-Anover, Regional Head of Collections Rudolph Zoleta, and Quedancor Operations Officer Carino Julius Canezal.
Named private defendants were spouses Luisito and Femy Vinuya and Marcos Reyes and Adela Gutierrez.
In an order issued on July 30, 2024, the QC RTC dismissed the case, as it upheld the argument of defendants Gagelonia and spouses Vinuya that the court was an improper venue because the loan was filed, processed, and assessed in Quedancor-Manila.
The defendants argued that the QC court does not have jurisdiction over the case and their persons.
In its Petition for Certiorari filed with the Sandiganbayan, the Ombudsman said RTC Judge Atienza-Fajardo did not uphold the citizen’s right to due process, adding that the dismissal order was tinged with potential grave abuse of discretion.
In reversing the QC RTC, the Sandiganbayan sustained the Ombudsman’s position that the graft case “falls well within the jurisdiction of the QC-RTC.
While acknowledging that the loan application was submitted, processed, and evaluated at the Quedancor Regional Office in Manila, it was only involved in the initial paperwork and assessments.
“After that, the loan recommendations and final approval occurred at the Quedancor’s main office in Quezon City. It has been firmly established that a crucial component of the loan process – specifically, the recommendation and subsequent approval – occurred at Quedancor’s central office situated in Quezon City,” the court pointed out.
The Sandiganbayan said Judge Atienza-Fajardo “overlooked the complete process involved in availing a loan from Quedancor.”
It stressed that the final approval of the loan took place in Quezon City and without this process, the loan would not have been released to Vinuya.
“Consequently, the public respondent judge’s inability to recognize and properly consider the totality of the relevant facts and rules in this case amounts to a grave abuse of discretion. Her actions constitute a clear evasion of her fundamental responsibility to meticulously evaluate and understand facts relevant to the case,” the Sandiganbayan added.
