398 Phil. 762
GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
Provincial Lending CenterGarcia admitted having written the abovequoted letter after she was informed that her recommendation for denial of Mamburao's loan application was approved. She maintained that the letter did not contain any malicious, derogatory, or insulting words. Moreover, Garcia asserted that the letter was sent by means of registered mail, not ordinary mail as claimed by petitioners.
Baliuag, Bulacan
August 15, 1996
Mr. Guillermo Gutierrez
President
Mamburao Management Development Corp.
415 San Jose, Tumana St., Baliuag, Bulacan
Sir:
This is to inform you that your proposed restaurant project was recommended for denial due to the following reasons:It was understood however at the onset that the Bank is not liable for time spent in filing your loan application and complying to [sic] basic requirements.
- Not passing the risk analysis criteria which include assessment of management capabilities, ownership, quality, financial condition, collateral position and industry profile.
- Very weak collateral position. The waiver of rights signed by Mr. Mendoza does not supercede the par. 4 of the lease contract which states that default in payment for four consecutive months is a ground to cancel the contract.
- Adverse result of credit/background investigation. An updated credit/background investigation to supplement the previous investigation was conducted.
Thank you for considering Land Bank.
Very truly yours,
NANNY P. GARCIA
Head, Bulacan PLC
1) Garcia and Abella claimed that the Balagtas Branch denied Mamburao's loan application;
2) Garcia claimed that the denial of the loan application of Mamburao was due to or happened per letter of denial dated 20 February 1996;
3) Garcia claimed that Mamburao is not qualified as a borrower;
4) Garcia created the false impression that she "collated and evaluated" other adverse / derogatory reports / informations about Mamburao;
5) Garcia claimed that she is not aware of a letter of Atty. Venustiano Roxas dated 22 July 1996 suggesting that Garcia be immediately relieved from the Mamburao, Inc. Project; and
6) Garcia and Abella stated that they are seeking the assistance of an "outside" lawyer for the criminal proceedings against them, when they were in fact represented by Atty. Dominador Reyes - an employee of Landbank.[2]
1. Preliminary investigation and prosecution of offenses committed by public officers and employees in relation to office whether cognizable by the Sandiganbayan or the regular courts, and whether filed with the Office of the Ombudsman or with the Office of the Provincial / City Prosecutor shall be under the control and supervision of the Office of the Ombudsman.
Perusal of the case records will show that there is no evidence that would indicate that Respondents exercised partiality evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their official function so that the loan application of Complainant would not materialize. As correctly pointed out by respondent Nanny Garcia in her counter-affidavit, "the giving of a loan is a consensual contract and banks cannot be dictated to give a loan when in its analysis the borrower is not qualified in its lending program." (p. 57, records). Complainant's claim that the consent and waiver document signed by the Mendoza spouses was the last requirement for its loan approval was not true because in the counter-affidavit of respondent Garcia he clarified that it was merely one of the requirements for the processing of the loan application (p. 103, records). Respondent Garcia further clarified that the letter of Elizabeth S. Olaviaga requesting for the submission of the consent and waiver does not necessarily mean that the loan will be approved because such document is merely one of the requirements for the processing of the loan at the PLC level and the same has to be approved by the Regional Head, Area Head, reviewed by the Branch Credit Management Department, approved by the Banking Sector Head as well as the President of the Bank.
Acting on the Petition for Review (OMB-1-97-2413) filed by Complainant, he pointed out three errors with respect to the dismissal of his criminal complaints by alleging the following:1. In particular, the Prosecutor erred in law and in fact and/or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in applying the presumption of "regularity of performance of official functions" by Respondents and disregarding the entire chain of Petitioner's evidence proving that Respondents were not acting in good faith (p. 17, records).
2. In particular, the Prosecutor erred in law and in fact and/or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for failing to act upon Abella's failure/defiance to prove the authenticity of the letter/report in complete disregard of the rules of evidence and its jurisprudence (p. 28, records).
3. In particular, the Prosecutor erred in law and in fact and/or gravely [a]bused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in not trying to establish the truth, but only the winnability of the case in court (p. 30, records).
4. In particular, the Prosecutor erred in law and in fact and/or gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in virtually insisting the Petitioners had to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts already in the preliminary investigation.
As a backgrounder, it is to be recalled that in I.S. No. 96-3724 for Slander against respondent N. Garcia, the subject matter of this case was an incident on July 19, 1996 whereby respondent N. Garcia allegedly stated that she will recommend the denial of the loan applied for by Complainant because Mamburao, Inc.'s Management is establishing a "front for prostitution where the GRO's (girls) are the main merchandise/only attraction, where no decent ladies could go alone in a totally immoral area."
Re I.S. No. 96-3725 for Libel against respondent Nanny Garcia the subject matter is a letter signed by respondent Garcia and addressed to Mr. Guillermo Gutierrez informing him of the reasons why the loan was denied, thus:1. Not passing the risk analysis criteria which include assessment of management capabilities, ownership, quality, financial condition, collateral position and industry profile.
2. Very weak collateral position. The waiver of rights signed by Mr. Mendoza does not supercede the par. 4 of the lease contract which states that default in payment for four (4) consecutive months is a ground to cancel the contract.
3. Adverse result of credit/background investigation. An updated credit/background investigation to supplement the previous investigation was conducted.
Re: I.S. No. 96-4307 for Falsification and/or Use of Falsified Documents filed by Messer against respondents Garcia and Abella, the subject matter of the complaint is a letter/report dated 20 February 1996 signed by respondent Abella and addressed to the Northern and Central Luzon Banking Group, stating the reasons for the denial of the loan, thus:
To: Northern and Central Luzon Banking Group
Re: Loan Application of Mamburao, Inc.
Mamburao, Inc. represented by Mr. Peter H. Messer, a German national, applied for a loan of P6M sometime in 1994. The project is for restaurant business situated in Bocaue, Bulacan with a tradename Blue Diamond Restaurant. The building will be constructed on leased property to Mr. Messer which in turn subleased it to Mamburao, Incorporated, the borrower.
Offered collateral are various properties (real estate) including improvements located - Antipolo, Rizal, Brgy. Putotan, Muntinlupa, Rizal, and Brgy. Borol 2nd, Balagtas, Bulacan with an appraised value of P3,263,900.00 and loan value of P2,273,590.00.
Based on the evaluation of the project, the branch can not accept/recommend the loan proposal primarily because of collateral shortages and the project to be financed is construction of restaurant building on a leased land not part of the collateral offered.
The proponent wants us to adjust our appraisal on the property which we do not agree. Because of this situation, Mr. Peter M. Messer resent [sic] our actions. Letter of P. Messer attached.
Re: I.S. No. 97-77 for Perjury against respondents Garcia and Abella, the subject matter are the controversial statements under oath during the preliminary investigation of the Slander, Libel and Falsification complaints at the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan.
In response to the criminal complaint for Slander, respondent Nanny Garcia in his counter-affidavit denied ever having stated that she will recommend the restaurant project for denial and denied saying that the restaurant project is a "front for prostitution where GROs are the main merchandise, etc." Respondent Garcia clarified that the work of the Provincial Lending Center is merely recommendatory, and that she merely collates the data and analyzes the same so that [s]he could make the corresponding recommendation of the proper channels (p. 54, records). Respondent Garcia filed instead a counter-complaint for Libel and Perjury against Paul Nicolau and Susan Esplana for executing an affidavit corroborating complainant Messer's claim that [s]he (Garcia) stated those alleged libelous accusations.
In the case of Libel filed against respondent Garcia, perusal of the subject letter dated August 15, 1996 will show that the same is not libelous. Such letter appears to have been done under normal circumstances which is to inform the new manager of Mamburao the reasons why the loan application was denied under the circumstances. As clearly pointed out by respondent Garcia in his counter-affidavit the sending of the letter of denial of a loan application is not unusual as the same is necessary in order that the loan applicant will be properly informed of the status of his loan application (par. 12, p. 57, records). Respondent further added that when the bank denied the loan application, it was not questioning the management capabilities of the men behind the corporation. It was merely saying that the borrower did not meet the risk analysis criteria of the bank. The letter was never meant to dishonor nor discredit the men behind the corporation. We agree, therefore, with the recommendation of the provincial fiscal to dismiss the said cases.
With respect to I.S. No. 96-4307 we likewise found no evidence to show that the letter dated February 20, 1996 signed by respondent Rodolfo Abella is a falsified document. In his counter-affidavit, respondent Abella admitted that he became aware of the re-application of Mamburao, Incorporated loan at the Baliuag branch and inconsistent with the established territorial jurisdiction of branches he sent an internal report to Northern and Central Luzon Banking Group dated February 20, 1996 informing of the previous denial of Mamburao loan with the LBP Balagtas Branch. Complainant opined that said letter dated February 20, 1996 is a falsified one which Nanny Garcia attached to her counter-affidavit.
The mere fact that respondent Abella, the letter-writer, admitted ever having written such letter, complainant can not claim that it is falsified.
If we are to follow the chain of events that lead to the filing of this complaint, it will definitely indicate that complainant harbored ill-feelings towards the officers of the LBP-Balagtas branch particularly when its loan application for P6M was downgraded by the bank to P2M to 3M. On that account, Complainant requested respondent Abella for a new appraiser preferably from the head office which request was turned down by respondent thus a shouting match ensued.
From the standpoint of Complainant, the denial of its subsequent loan application by the LBP-Baliuag branch was motivated by bad faith particularly by the LBP Officials who are respondents herein. In this regard, we see no reason of any abuse manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence with respect to the actuations of Respondents. As bank officials they (Respondents) are in a better position to know whether or not Respondent [sic] is qualified for the loan being asked for. Complainant cannot force/dictate the bank to approve the initial amount of P6M loan being applied for. As pointed out by Respondent, the granting of the loan is a mere privilege and not a right, thus finding no reason that would hold Respondents guilty of the crime charge [sic], we agree with the dismissal of the cases being complained of.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Resolution prepared by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Pelagia J. D. Joaquin recommending the dismissal of the complaints for Slander, Libel, Perjury and Falsification and/or Use of Falsified Documents be affirmed. Likewise the complaint for violation of R.A. 3019 and the Petition for Review filed by Complainant are dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
The dismissal by public respondent Office of the Ombudsman of petitioners' complaint for slander was made through plain oversight which can be explained, in part, by petitioners' own sad and reprehensible efforts at forum shopping. Petitioners filed before the Office of the Ombudsman a complaint for slander as well as libel, perjury and falisfication and/or use of falsified document (OMB-1-97-1465) against respondent bank officers despite knowledge that the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan had already filed an information for slander against respondent Garcia before the Municipal Trial Court of Baliuag, Bulacan and after their complaints for libel, perjury and falsification and/or use of falsified document were dismissed by the same office. Be that as it may, the dismissal by the Office of the Ombudsman of the slander charge did not produce any effect since it has not moved for the withdrawal of the information for slander filed before the aforementioned court.[11]
SEC. 2. Evaluation. - Upon evaluating the complaint, the investigating officer shall recommend whether it may be:
a) dismissed outright for want of palpable merit;
b) referred to respondent for comment;
c) indorsed to the proper government office or agency which has jurisdiction over the case;
d) forwarded to the appropriate officer or official for fact-finding investigation;
e) referred for administrative adjudication; or
f) subjected to a preliminary investigation.
...this Court has consistently refrained from interfering with the exercise by the Ombudsman of his constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. Otherwise stated, it is beyond the ambit of this Court to review the exercise of discretion of the Ombudsman in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it. Such initiative and independence are inherent in the Ombudsman who, beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and preserver of the integrity of the public service.
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they would be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.