A Quezon City court has dismissed the P1-billion civil case filed against former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co, Quezon City Rep. Patrick Michael Vargas and other respondents over alleged anomalous flood control projects.
The Quezon City Regional Trial Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after the complainants failed to pay the required filing fees.
The order, dated April 15 but made public on June 29, said the court could not proceed with the complaint because it had not acquired jurisdiction over the case due to the non-payment of the fees computed by the Office of the Clerk of Court.
The civil case was filed in December 2025 by former Quezon City councilor Antonio Enrile Inton Jr. on behalf of the United People Against Corruption.
The complaint accused the respondents of abuse of rights and unjust enrichment in connection with alleged failed or anomalous flood control projects in Quezon City.
UPAC claimed that flood control allocations for Vargas’ district reached P944.6 million annually, or about P2.86 billion from 2023 to 2025, but residents in flood-prone areas, particularly in Novaliches, allegedly saw little to no improvement.
Inton said the case was not dismissed based on the merits of the allegations but on procedural grounds.
He said the matter has been elevated to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari questioning the RTC ruling.
According to Inton, the filing fees were set at about P20 million based on the P1-billion damages sought in the complaint.
Vargas welcomed the dismissal, saying the failure to pursue the complaint by paying the filing fees showed that the allegations were baseless.
“We welcome this decision of the court. From the very start, we were confident that this case would not prosper,” Vargas said.
He also accused the complainants of using the courts for a smear campaign.
The dismissal does not rule on whether the alleged flood control irregularities occurred. It only means the trial court did not proceed with the case due to the filing fee issue.
As of posting, the complainants are pursuing relief before the appellate court.