3 hospital execs face estafa raps over equipment purchase

By Jennifer P. Rendon

Three executives of a local hospital in Iloilo were indicted for two counts of estafa in a multi-million peso equipment deal.

A resolution penned by Senior Prosecutor Nonatus Ortiz of the Mandaluyong City Prosecutor’s Office formally accused Ma. Vejaya Garillos, Maria Rosario Lopez, and Fritzie Edna Garrido of the Holy Mary Women and Children’s Hospital located in Pavia, Iloilo.

Lopez is the hospital’s chief executive officer, Garrido is the finance director while Garillos is the purchasing officer.

They were charged for Estafa and/or Other Deceits under Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code following a complaint lodged by Medilines Distributors, Inc. represented by Marjorie Pabico.

The complaint stemmed from the 2017 procurements of Holy Mary Hospital (HMH) of various hospital equipment.

The first purchase on July 13, 2017 amounting to P8.7 million was initiated by Garillos and Lopez.

On Oct. 7, 2017, Garillos, Lopez, and Garrido made another purchase order amounting to P5 million.

In the two transactions, both parties agreed that the purchasers will make a 30 percent downpayment while the 70 percent balance will be paid monthly for a full year and will supposedly be covered by post-dated checks (PDCs).

“Relying on the representations on both purchase orders, Medilines delivered the equipment on Nov. 17, 2017 and Jan. 26, 2018, respectively. However, despite the deliver made, the respondents allegedly failed and refused to issue PDCs,” according to the resolution.

A demand letter addressed to Lopez was sent on Oct. 8, 2019.

Medilines asserted that it was “defrauded through deceit and false representations perpetrated by the respondents. It would not have agreed to sell, much more deliver, the equipments if the respondents would refuse to issue the 12 PDCs.

In the 4-page resolution, the Mandaluyong prosecutor took note of the failed obligations amid claims of innocence by two of the three respondents.

In her defense, Garrido denied the accusations against her. She claimed to have only been employed by the hospital as a finance director and was tasked to sign the purchase order prepared by Garillos.

Purchase orders are then forwarded to Lopez, the hospital’s chief executive officer, for final approval.

Garrido asserted that upon compliance of the required 30 percent down payment, the remaining balance is prepared for payment on a monthly basis upon Lopez’s approval.

Meanwhile, Garillos claimed that she only prepared the purchase orders upon Lopez’s request. Thus, she has no personal liability for the said purchases

However, “upon evaluation and assiduous consideration of the parties’ respective positions, we rule for the complaint,” the resolution said.

“We share the view that false pretense and deceit were employed by Respondents prior to or simultaneous with the actual defraudation of Medilines. The latter would not have acceded to the transaction and delivered valuable medical equipment had it not been for respondents’ promises and representations,” it added.

“As borne by the records, the respondents initiated said transactions. They were the ones who proposed the mode and manner of payments. In their offer to buy, it was them who lured complainant into agreeing on a 30% downpayment and 12 equal monthly installments for the remaining 70% with supporting checks.”

The resolution added that “there is no gainsaying that respondents represented Holy Mary Hospital to be financially able and capable of entering into above-board transactions.  Yet to the detriment of the complainant, the respondents could not do the simpliest and mundane act of issuing the checks after receipt of the medical equipment.  Undoubtedly, Medilines was swayed and took as Gospel truth respondents’ persuasions.”

With elements of fraud established, the resolution further stated that it is “suitably justified to conclude that respondents had no intention to honor and keep their obligation right from the onset.”

“It bears emphasis that while respondents handed over 30% downpayment based on their proposed schedule, said payment and undertaking to pay equal installments supported by checks are but part of grand scheme or ploy to beguile Medilines into delivering the equipments.  As established, respondents did not issue checks, let alone pay for bigger part of the medical equipments.  It strongly appears that respondents have pulled a fast one against Medilines. Criminal malevolence speaks loudly against respondents for their apparent one of intent to be bound at all,” the resolution read.

Complainant Medilines is represented by lawyers Emmanuel Brotarlo and Noel Palomado.