The case is one of many filed in separate petitions by Urban Bank president Teodoro Borlongan involving criminal charges against BSP Gov. Rafael Buenaventura, deputy governor Albert Reyes and examiners Ma. Dolores Yuvienco, Candon Guerrero and Tomas Aure Jr.
This case is separate from another one filed against Buenaventura, although the four BSP officials were also named in the other case.
There are also two administrative cases pending before the SC, one filed by Borlongan against Buenaventura and another Borlongan filed against Reyes and three other BSP officials.
Buenaventura’s case was decided in Borlongan’s favor by the 5th division of the Court of Appeals, while the other case was decided in favor of the BSP by the CA’s 7th division.
The case against Buenaventura led to the issuance of a suspension order of one year and one day against the BSP chief, which was handed down by another division of the CA. This suspension is still under appeal before the SC.
The criminal charges against Buenaventura et al were ruled in the BSP’s favor, but Borlongan appealed the decision before the SC, which upheld the Ombudsman decision on Oct. 13.
In a five-page decision handed down by the third division of the SC, the high tribunal said it found no "compelling reason to deviate from the ruling of the Ombudsman" and ordered the dismissal of Borlongan’s petition for certiorari.
"We have, more than once, declared our reluctance to interfere in the exercise of such discretion (without) any compelling reason," the SC said in its decision.
Buenaventura expressed relief that the high court dismissed the criminal charges against him and his co-accused. He also expressed hope that the BSP’s decision to shut down Urban Bank would soon be vindicated. "Now we are waiting for the SC decision on the administrative charges," Buenaventura said. "It’s not worrying us. We continue to function without any hindrance."
Borlongan, on the other hand, expressed bewilderment at the SC decision. "I’m quite at a loss," he said in a telephone interview.
In his petition to the SC, Borlongan argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed his petition against Buenaventura and the four BSP officials.
"It can be readily discerned that the findings of the Ombudsman are essentially factual in nature," the SC said in its ruling. "Accordingly, in assailing such findings and contending that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, the petitioner is actually raising questions of fact."
According to the SC, it is not a trier of facts and, therefore, would not review the evidence of the case.
"The determination whether a probable cause exists lies within the sound discretion of the Office of the Ombudsman," the SC ruling said.