SECOND DIVISION
|
RAMON
J. QUISUMBING, Petitioner, - versus - SANDIGANBAYAN
(FIFTH DIVISION), REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and PHILIPPINE JOURNALIST,
INC., represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 138437 Present: CARPIO MORALES,*
Acting Chairperson, AZCUNA,** TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: November 14, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Via petition for certiorari, Ramon J.
Quisumbing (petitioner) assails the Sandiganbayan Resolutions of
The
antecedent facts of the case are as follows:
By
virtue of a Writ of Sequestration[3]
dated April 22, 1986 it issued, the Presidential
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed on July 13, 1987 a complaint before
the Sandiganbayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 0035,[4] “Republic v. Benjamin ‘Kokoy’ Romualdez,” for
recovery, conveyance and accounting of various properties and assets of
Benjamin Romualdez, deposed President Ferdinand Marcos, former First lady
Imelda Romualdez Marcos, and their alleged dummies and cohorts, on the ground
that those constitute ill-gotten wealth.
Among the properties subject of the complaint are those of the
Philippine Journalist Inc. (PJI) including untitled parcels of land measuring
around 7, 087 square meters situated in Mabini, Batangas (Mabini lots).
During
the pendency of Civil Case No. 0035, the then PCGG-appointed members of the PJI
Board of Directors, namely Jaime Cura, Johnny Araneta, Angel Sepidoza and
Renato Paras, executed a Contract of Sale[5]
dated June 5, 1991 and a Deed of Absolute Conveyance[6]
dated June 25, 1991 covering the Mabini lots in favor of petitioner, acting as
trustee of the Doy Development Corporation.
The contracts, called management contracts, were deemed confirmed by PJI
Board Resolution No. 91-30[7]
dated
The
Sandiganbayan, acting on the “Urgent Motion to Enjoin PCGG- Appointed Board of
Directors from Effecting Sale of PJI Real Properties” filed by PJI stockholder Rosario
Olivares, nullified the management contracts, by Resolution[8] of
February 25, 1992, on the ground that they were entered into by the abovementioned
PJI members of the Board without the Sandiganbayan’s prior approval and consent
of the PCGG.
Jaime Cura, then President of the PJI
who was the signatory to the contracts, assailed via certiorari the Sandiganbayan
PCGG and PJI thereupon filed before
the Sandiganbayan a Complaint[10] against
petitioner and the PCGG-appointed PJI members of the Board, docketed as Civil
Case No. 0172, for reconveyance of the Mabini lots, the subject of the present
petition.
To the complaint, petitioner filed a
Motion to Dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action on the part of the
PCGG and the Republic. Petitioner contended
that the Mabini lots were never sequestered nor placed in custodia legis, hence, the prior authorization of the Sandiganbayan
and the consent of PCGG were not necessary; that the Sequestration Order dated
April 22, 1996 covered only the shares of Benjamin Romualdez, his relatives,
agents and nominees, and not the assets and properties of PJI which is a
corporation having a separate and distinct personality from its stockholders;
and that the said Order was issued without proper authority, having been signed
by only one Commissioner, in violation
of Sec. 3 of the PCGG Rules requiring at least two Commissioners to sign any
order.
Petitioner maintained that the
Republic has no cause of action as it is not a real party in interest, the Mabini
lots being exclusively owned by PJI before they were sold and, therefore, the
Republic’s interest, at most, would only be that of a stockholder of the PJI.
In its Opposition,[11]
the Republic maintained that PJI’s assets were in custodia legis and their disposition required prior approval or
confirmation from the Sandiganbayan and the PCGG, following this Court’s
Resolution sustaining that of the Sandiganbayan that PJI is a sequestered
corporation.
Petitioner countered that the Resolutions
of the Sandiganbayan and this Court did not bind him because he was not a party
to the proceedings therein and that the Resolutions merely assumed, but did not
actually find, that the Mabini lots were sequestered.
By Supplemental Motion to Dismiss[12]
dated
The Republic submitted, however, a certified
true copy of a Writ of Sequestration dated
Petitioner assailed the authenticity
of the certified copy of the Sequestration Order which he claimed to be a mere
fabrication. And he questioned the Writ
of Sequestration on the ground that it did not authorize the sequestration of
the Mabini lots, but only the shares of stocks held in the PJI by Benjamin
Romualdez and his relatives or assignees.
By Resolution of
On the issue of whether the Republic is a real
party in interest, the Sandiganbayan held that since PJI is a corporation under
sequestration by the PCGG representing the government or the Republic in its
efforts to recover ill-gotten properties and assets pertaining to former
President Marcos et al., it is the Republic which is the party which stands to
be benefited or injured by the outcome of the case.
Petitioner’s Motion for
Reconsideration having been denied, the present petition was filed. This time, petitioner faults the
Sandiganbayan solely for its finding that the Republic is a real party in
interest.
In its Comment,[14] the
Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintains that the
assailed Resolutions denying the motion to dismiss are interlocutory, hence,
they cannot be the proper subject of a petition for certiorari.
On the merits, the Republic asserts
that it is a real party in interest as it stands to be benefited or injured by
the outcome of the case.
In a Supplement[15] dated
Still in another Manifestation dated P33,364,889.19
with the Sandiganbayan on December 21, 2004 and that the formal turn-over of
PJI by the APT to its former stockholders was implemented soon thereafter. Hence, petitioner avers that the Republic,
through the APT, has lost all rights or interests it claims to have over the
PJI.
Petitioner concludes that these
recent developments confirm that the government’s ownership and control over
PJI was on account of PJI’s former stockholders’ assignment of the controlling
shares of stock to APT as security for PJI’s loan obligations to APT.
The Court notes that, indeed, the
assailed Resolutions denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss are interlocutory,
hence, not the proper subject of a petition for certiorari.
An
order denying a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order which neither
terminates nor finally disposes of a case, as it leaves something to be done by
the court before the case is finally decided on the merits. As such, the general rule is that the
denial of a motion to dismiss cannot be questioned in a
special civil action for certiorari which is a remedy
designed to correct errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.
Neither can the denial of a motion to dismiss be the subject
of an appeal unless and until a final judgment or order is rendered. In
order to justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, the denial of the motion to dismiss must have been tainted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[20] (Emphasis supplied)
In order, however, to put the issue
to rest given the length of time that the case has been pending, the Court
resolves to set aside technicalities.
The petition is without merit.
Sec. 2 of Rule 3 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides:
Sec.
2. Parties in interest. – A real party in interest is the party who stands
to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled
to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these
Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real
party in interest.
“Interest” within the meaning of the immediately-quoted
Rule means material interest or an interest in issue to be affected by the
decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved or a mere
incidental interest. Otherwise stated,
the Rule refers to a real or present substantial interest as distinguished from
a mere expectancy, or a future, contingent, subordinate or consequential
interest. As a general rule, one who has
no right or interest to protect cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court as a
party-plaintiff in an action;[21] if
he does, the suit is dismissible on the ground of lack of cause of action.[22]
Prescinding
from these precepts, the Court holds that, contrary to petitioner’s assertion, the
Republic is a real party in interest in Civil Case No. 0172. A cursory perusal of Executive Order (EO) No.
2, “Regarding [sic] the
Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by
Former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez marcos, their Close
Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees,”
issued on March 12, 1986 by then President Aquino, shows that it is for and in
behalf of the Republic and the Filipino people that the recovery of the
so-called ill-gotten wealth is being undertaken. Thus, the pertinent portion of the EO reads:
x x x x
WHEREAS,
the Government of the Philippines is in possession of evidence showing that
there are assets and properties purportedly pertaining to former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos, and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close
relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or nominees which
had been or were acquired by them directly or indirectly, through or as a
result of the improper or illegal use of funds or property owned by the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches,
instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking
undue advantage of their office, authority, influence, connections or
relationships, resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damages and prejudice to the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines;
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Evidently,
the purpose of going after the assets and properties of the deposed President
et al. is to protect the interests of the Filipino people and the Government,
on the premise that those assets and properties were illegally acquired with
the use of public funds or government resources or by taking advantage of their
power. Hence, in filing the action for reconveyance, the Republic, through the
PCGG, is protecting its interests in the Mabini lots owned by PJI which, as
earlier determined by this Court, is a sequestered corporation. As this Court cautioned in Meralco v. Sandiganbayan,[23] the
deterioration and disappearance of sequestered assets “cannot be allowed to
happen, unless there is a final adjudication and disposition of the issue of whether
they are ill-gotten or not, since they may
result in damage or prejudice
to the Republic.”
Petitioner’s
reliance on the ruling in G.R. No. 108552 is misplaced. Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, said case
did not overturn the ruling in G.R.
106209. What was involved in G.R. No. 108552 was, inter alia, the assignment of the shares of PJI’s former
stockholders to the Development Bank of the
Petitioner’s reliance on the ruling
in G.R. No. 138598 is likewise misplaced. That case involved the computation of the
former PJI stockholders’ outstanding obligations to the APT to which DBP assigned
the same. Petitioner’s plea for the
Court to take judicial notice of the news article on the supposed turn-over of
PJI to its stockholders thus fails.
Finally, petitioner’s arguments that the
Republic’s failure to pray for the reconveyance to it of the Mabini lots reflects
its not being a real party in interest, and that since PJI is already
represented by the PCGG, it is superfluous for the Republic to be a
co-plaintiff fail. At most, like its misplaced reliance on rulings of
this Court in G.R. Nos. 108552 and 138598, these are feeble attempts to
invoke technicalities to further delay the proceedings in the case.
WHEREFORE, the
petition is DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Acting Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Acting
Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief
Justice
* Acting Chairperson in lieu of Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing who took no part.
** Additional
member per Raffle dated
[1] Annex “A” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 16-27; penned by then Associate Justice and Chairman of the Fifth Division, Hon. Minita V. Chico-Nazario (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., and Godofredo L. Legaspi.
[2] Annex “B” of the Petition, rollo, pp. 28-31; penned by then Associate Justice Hon. Minita V. Chico-Nazario and concurred in by Associate Justices Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., and Ma. Cristina Cortez-Estrada.
[3] Rollo, p. 41.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Vide Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of
Directors of Philippine Journalists, Inc., dated
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Annex “E” of the Petition, id. at 192-197.
[12]
[13] 355 Phil. 181 (1998).
[14] Rollo, p. 245.
[15]
[16] G.R. No. 108552,
[17] Rollo, pp. 346-353.
[18] G.R. No. 138598,
[19] Annex “B” of Supplement, rollo, p. 360.
[20] Lu
Ym v. Nabua, G.R. No. 161309,
[21] Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152574, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 507.
[22] Pascual
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
115925,
[23] 232 SCRA 644 (1994).