Case Summary (G.R. No. 119990)
Background of the Case
- Petitioner Remberto C. Kara-an filed a complaint against members of the Board of Directors of the Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank, alleging violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) for granting a loan without valid collateral.
- The complaint was endorsed by Senator Ernesto Maceda to the Ombudsman for investigation.
- The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, stating that the respondents were not members of the Board at the time of the loan approval.
Allegations and Initial Investigation
- Kara-an accused the Board of Directors of approving a loan of P250,000 to Compressed Air Machineries & Equipment Corporation (CAMEC) without proper collateral and legal requirements.
- The Ombudsman required the Board members to comment on the allegations, leading to their defense that they were not involved in the loan approval process as they were not yet appointed to the Board at that time.
Ombudsman’s Resolution
- The Ombudsman found that the complaint lacked merit, emphasizing that the Board relied on reports from subordinate officials and could not be expected to verify every detail of the loan application.
- The Ombudsman noted that Kara-an, as the Officer-in-Charge of the Makati Branch, had a direct responsibility for screening loan applications.
Motion for Reconsideration
- Kara-an filed a motion for reconsideration, denying his role as Officer-in-Charge during the loan approval and asserting that others were responsible.
- The Ombudsman denied the motion, reiterating that the respondents were not in office during the loan approval and thus could not be held liable.
Legal Issues Raised by the Petitioner
- Kara-an raised several issues regarding the Ombudsman’s investigation, including whether appropriate investigations were conducted, whether crimes were committed, and whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.
- The Solicitor General and Government Corporate Counsel sought dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.
Procedural Missteps in Filing
- The petition was improperly filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which is meant for appeals from final orders of certain courts, rather than under Rule 65, which is appropriate for petitions for certiorari against the Ombudsman’s resolutions.
- The Court noted that the right to appeal under Rule 45 does not extend to orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal cases.
Ombudsman’s Discretion and Authority
- The Court emphasized the Ombudsman’s constitutional authority to investigate and dismiss complaints, stating that it would not interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion unless there was grave abuse of discretion.
- The Ombudsman acted within its authority in dismissing the complaint based on the lack of merit and the absence of prima facie evidence against the respondents.
Findings on the Dismissal of the Complaint
- The Court concluded that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint, as the respondents were not in office during the relevant time.
- The Ombudsman’s findings were supported by substantial evidence, and the Court reiterated its po...continue reading