G.R. No. 152375

EN BANC

G.R. No. 152375 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L. AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO, JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, JUAN PONCE ENRILE and POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by his heirs), Respondents.

Promulgated:

December 16, 2011

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO, J.:

This is a special civil action for certiorari ¹ filed by the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner), through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), seeking to set aside the Resolution dated 7 February 2002 of the Sandiganbayan, which denied petitioners Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane).

The case pertains to the complaint filed before the Sandiganbayan by petitioner against private respondents for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages. The complaint, which was filed on 22 July 1987, was docketed as Civil Case No. 0009. Civil Case No. 0009 involves, among others, the shares of private respondents in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which were allegedly ill-gotten and were eventually sequestered by the government.²

The issue in this certiorari proceeding concerns the admissibility of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, taken primarily for testimony regarding the interlocutory issue in Civil Case No. 0130, which is one of the incident cases of Civil Case No. 0009.

Civil Case No. 0130 is a petition for certiorari filed with the Sandiganbayan by Victor Africa, son of Jose L. Africa,³ who is one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 0009, against the PCGG. Victor Africa filed the petition, seeking to nullify the PCGG orders directing him, among others, to account for his sequestered shares in ETPI. In a Resolution dated 12 April 1993,⁴ the Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, with several incident cases including Civil Case No. 0130.⁵

On 25 September 1996, in Civil Case No. 0009 in connection with Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a Second Amended Notice to Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination.⁶ On 23 and 24 October 1996, the deposition upon oral examination of Maurice V. Bane, former director and treasurer-in trust of ETPI, was taken before Consul General Ernesto Castro at the Philippine Embassy in London, England. Among the defendants in the main Civil Case No. 0009, only Victor Africa appeared during the taking of the deposition.

On 22 January 1998, petitioner filed a motion ⁷ praying that it be allowed to adopt the testimonies of several of its witnesses in incidental Civil Case Nos. 0048, 0050, 0130 and 0146, including the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, as its evidence in the main case, Civil Case No. 0009. On 1 April 1998, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, denying in part the motion as regards the adoption of the testimony on oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane (and Rolando Gapud) as part of petitioners evidence in Civil Case No. 0009, for the reason that said deponents according to the plaintiff, are not available for cross examination in this Court by the defendants.⁸

On 14 December 1999, petitioner made its Formal Offer of Evidence consisting of Exhibits A to XX-27. However, through oversight, petitioner failed to include among its exhibits the deposition of Maurice V. Bane. Thus, in its Urgent Motion And/Or Request for Judicial Notice dated 21 February 2000, petitioner prayed that it be allowed to introduce as additional evidence the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, or in the alternative, for the Sandiganbayan to take judicial notice of the facts established by the said deposition. On 21 August 2000, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution denying petitioners motion. The Resolution stated:

Allegedly the deposition of Maurice V. Bane was introduced as PCGGs evidence in Civil Case No. 0130 (in relation to G.R. No. 107789) which is an incident of and consolidated with the above-entitled case in connection with PCGGs Very Urgent Petition for Authority to Hold Special Stockholders Meeting for the Purpose of Increasing ETPIs Authorized Capital Stock and the said deposition of Maurice V. Bane is now a part and parcel of the record of this main case.

Judicial notice is found under Rule 129 which is titled What Need Not Be Proved. Apparently, this provision refers to the Courts duty to consider admissions made by the parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other proceedings in resolving cases before it. The duty of the Court is mandatory and in those cases where it is discretionary, the initiative is upon the Court. Such being the case, the Court finds the Urgent Motion and/or Request for judicial notice as something which need not be acted upon as the same is considered redundant.

On the matter of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, the admission of the same is done through the ordinary formal offer of exhibits wherein the defendant is given ample opportunity to raise objection on grounds provided by law. Definitely, it is not under Article 129 on judicial notice.⁹

Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Sandiganbayan denied in a Resolution issued on 3 April 2001. The Resolution stated:

In the subject Resolution [issued on 21 August 2000], this Court ruled that the Urgent Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice was something that need not be acted upon as the same was already considered redundant, the deposition of Bane, having become part and parcel of the record of this main case since Civil Case No. 0130 is an incident to the same.

This Court further held that the admission of same is done through ordinary formal offer of exhibits wherein defendant is given ample opportunity to raise objection on grounds provided by law, and not under Rule 129 on judicial notice.

WHEREFORE, there being no other issue which merit consideration of this Court, the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.¹⁰ (Emphasis supplied)

On 16 November 2001, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane), seeking once again the admission of the deposition. On 7 February 2002, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed Resolution, denying petitioners motion. The Sandiganbayan ruled:

The only issue that the court is actually called upon to address in the pending incident is whether or not We should allow plaintiff-movants Supplemental Offer of Evidence consisting of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane.

x x x

Defendants Opposition to the pending incident as well as plaintiffs Reply to the Opposition gave various reasons why the motion should or should not be granted. But in the courts view, it is not really a question of whether or not plaintiff has already rested its case as to obviate the further presentation of evidence. It is not even a question of whether the non-appearing defendants are deemed to have waived their right to cross-examine Bane as to qualify the admission of the deposition sans such cross-examination. Indeed, We do not see any need to dwell on these matters in view of this courts Resolution rendered in April 1, 1998 which already denied the introduction in evidence of Banes deposition and which has become final in view of plaintiffs failure to file any motion for reconsideration or appeal within the 15-day reglementary period. Rightly or wrongly, the resolution stands and for this court to grant plaintiffs motion at this point in time would in effect sanction plaintiffs disregard for the rules of procedure. Plaintiff has slept on its rights for almost two years and it was only in February of 2000 that it sought to rectify its ineptitude by filing a motion to reopen its case as to enable it to introduce and offer Banes deposition as additional evidence, or in the alternative for the court to take judicial notice of the allegations of the deposition. But how can such a motion be granted when it has been resolved as early as 1998 that the deposition is inadmissible. Without plaintiff having moved for reconsideration within the reglementary period, the resolution has attained finality and its effect cannot be undone by the simple expedient of filing a motion, which though purporting to be a novel motion, is in reality a motion for reconsideration of this courts 1998 ruling. Hence, the subsequent motions, including the present incident are deemed moot and academic.¹¹

Hence, this petition for certiorari.

I vote to grant the petition.

It is important to note that the Second Amended Notice to Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination, filed on 25 September 1996, was after the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, through the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 12 April 1993. This is evident in the caption of the notice, thus:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN

MANILA

Third Division

Republic of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 0009

-versus- (Incident Case No. 0130

and G.R. No. 107789)

JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

It should be noted that the late Jose L. Africa, one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 0009, has been substituted by his heirs, including his son Victor Africa. Thus, Justice Brion's statement that Victor Africa is plainly not a party to Civil Case No. 0009 ¹² is misleading. Although Victor Africa was not originally impleaded in Civil Case No. 0009, Victor Africa became one of the substitute defendants in Civil Case No. 0009 upon the demise of Jose L. Africa. In fact, Victor Africa, as substitute defendant in Civil Case No. 0009, has filed with the Sandiganbayan several pleadings ¹³ and his Offer of Evidence.¹⁴

All the defendants of Civil Case No. 0009 were given notice of the scheduled testimony by oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane. Furthermore, the notice stated that [t]he deposition of said witness shall be used in evidence in Incident Case No. 0130-G.R. No. 107789 as well as in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009.¹⁵ Since notices have been duly served on all the defendants, those who failed to show up at the deposition-taking are deemed to have waived their right to appear and cross-examine the deponent. Indeed, under Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the deposition may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof. Section 4, Rule 23 reads:

Sec. 4. Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions:

(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as witness;

(b) The deposition of a party or of any one who at the time of the taking of the deposition was an officer, director, or managing agent of a public or private corporation, partnership, or association which is a party may be used by an adverse party for any purpose;

(c) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (1) that the witness is dead; or (2) that the witness resides at a distance more than one hundred (100) kilometers from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the Philippines, unless it appears that his absence was procured by the party offering the deposition; or (3) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age, sickness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (4) that the party offering the deposition has been unable to procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (5) upon application and notice, that such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used; and

(d) if only part of the deposition is offered in evidence by a party, the adverse party may require him to introduce all of it which is relevant to the part introduced, and any party may introduce any other parts. (Emphasis supplied)

Granting that among the defendants in the main Civil Case No. 0009, only Victor Africa is a party to the incident Civil Case No. 0130, still all the other defendants in Civil Case No. 0009 were given notice of the scheduled deposition-taking. The reason why all the defendants were given notice of the said deposition-taking was because at that time, Civil Case No. 0130 was already consolidated with Civil Case No. 0009 and as emphasized in the second amended notice, [t]he deposition of said witness shall be used in evidence in Incident Case No. 0130-G.R. No. 107789 as well as in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009.¹⁶

The Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 12 April 1993 which consolidated the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, with several incident cases including Civil Case No. 0130, reads:

Republic of the Philippines

SANDIGANBAYAN

Manila

- - - -

THIRD DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0009

JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

VICTOR AFRICA, ET AL.,

Intervenors,

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

POLYGON INVESTORS AND MANAGERS,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0043

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

AEROCOM INVESTORS AND MANAGERS,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0044

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0045

EDUARDO M. VILLANUEVA and

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0047

MELQUIADES GUTIERREZ,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

VICTOR AFRICA, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0130

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

TRADERS ROYAL BANK,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0131

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

FAR EAST BANK & TRUST CO.,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0139

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0143

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

TRADERS ROYAL BANK,

Plaintiff,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0128

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DOMESTIC SATELLITE

PHILIPPINES, INC.,

Petitioner,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0106

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON

GOOD GOVERNMENT AND THE

ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST,

Respondents.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

PHILIPPINE COMMUNICATIONS

SATELLITE CORPORATION AND

PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELE-

COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

-versus- CIVIL CASE NO. 0114

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION Present:

ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, HERMOSISIMA, J., Chairman,

Defendant. DEL ROSARIO & DE LEON, JJ.

Promulgated: April 15, 1993

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

R E S O L U T I O N

DE LEON, J.

Submitted for resolution is the Motion for Consolidation, dated June 22, 1992, filed by the Republic of the Philippines (represented by the PCGG), through counsel.

The record shows that there is no opposition in the above-entitled cases to the said motion. It also appears that the subject matters of the above-entitled cases are and/or may be treated as mere incidents in Civil Case No. 0009.

WHEREFORE, the above-entitled cases are hereby ordered consolidated with Civil Case No. 0009, and shall henceforth be considered and treated as mere incidents of said Civil Case No. 0009.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines, April 12, 1993.¹⁷

Section 1, Rule 31 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 1. Consolidation. When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. (Emphasis supplied)

The 12 April 1993 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan ordered a consolidation of all the cases, not merely a joint hearing or trial.

Justice Brion maintains that to resolve the issue of the admissibility of the Bane deposition, the effect of the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with Civil Case No. 0009 should first be determined. Justice Brion emphasizes that despite the consolidation, the two cases remain distinct and separate from each other, such that a mere notice of deposition taking, even if under the expressed intent of using the testimony in evidence in the main case, cannot automatically bind the private respondents who were not previously heard thereon.

In his modified draft Decision, Justice Brion posits that the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 with several incident cases including Civil Case No. 0130 is merely a consolidation for trial. On page 31 of the modified Draft Decision, a consolidation for trial, as defined in American jurisprudence is:

Where several actions are ordered to be tried together but each retains its separate character and requires entry of a separate judgment. This type of consolidation does not merge the suits into a single action, or cause the parties to one action to be parties to the other.

In this kind of consolidation, the cases are merely tried together but a decision is rendered separately in each case.

In Philippine jurisprudence, the consolidation of cases merges the different actions into one and the rights of the parties are adjudicated in a single judgment, thus:

The effect of consolidation of actions is to unite and merge all of the different actions consolidated into a single action, in the same manner as if the different causes of action involved had originally been joined in a single action, and the order of consolidation, if made by a court of competent jurisdiction, is binding upon all the parties to the different actions until it is vacated or set aside. After the consolidation there can be no further proceedings in the separate actions, which are by virtue of the consolidation discontinued and superseded by a single action, which should be entitled in such manner as the court may direct, and all subsequent proceedings therein be conducted and the rights of the parties adjudicated in a single action.¹⁸ (Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, when consolidated cases are appealed to the Supreme Court or when the Court orders consolidation of cases, the Justice to whom the consolidated cases are assigned renders a single decision, adjudicating all the rights of the parties in the consolidated cases.¹⁹ The Chief Justice assigns the consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the case having the lower or lowest docket number has been raffled.²⁰

The 12 April 1993 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of the incidental cases, including Civil Case No. 0130, with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009. Unlike a mere order of a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions, the consolidation of actions merges the different actions into one single action. This means that evidence, such as depositions, taken after the consolidation is admissible in all the actions consolidated whenever relevant or material. In this case, since the notice and the deposition-taking was after the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, the deposition could be admitted as evidence in the consolidated cases.²¹

The purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, and save unnecessary costs and expenses.²² The consolidation of actions involving a common question of law or fact seeks to prevent a repetition of evidence, such that the testimony of witnesses may be used in all the consolidated cases whenever it is relevant or material.

In Bank of Commerce v. Perlas-Bernabe,²³ the Court ordered the consolidation of two cases which involve the same focal issue and require substantially the same evidence on the matter. Similarly, in Domdom v. Third and Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan,²⁴ the Court ordered the consolidation of cases in the Sandiganbayan, where the core element of the cases is substantially the same and the main witness is also the same. The Court held:

In Teston v. Development Bank of the Philippines, the Court laid down the requisites for the consolidation of cases, viz:

A court may order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence, provided that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated and that a joint trial will not give one party an undue advantage or prejudice the substantive rights of the parties.

The rule allowing consolidation is designed to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression or abuse, to prevent delays, to clear congested dockets, and to simplify the work of the trial court in short, the attainment of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.

x x x

In the present case, it would be more in keeping with law and equity if all the cases filed against petitioner were consolidated with that having the lowest docket number pending with the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The only notable differences in these cases lie in the date of the transaction, the entity transacted with and the amount involved. The charge and core element are the same estafa through falsification of documents based on alleged overstatements of claims for miscellaneous and extraordinary expenses. Notably, the main witness is also the same Hilconeda P. Abril.

It need not be underscored that consolidation of cases, when proper, results in the simplification of proceedings which saves time, the resources of the parties and the courts and the abbreviation of trial. It contributes to the swift dispensation of justice, and is in accord with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts. Above all, consolidation avoids the possibility of rendering conflicting decisions in two or more cases which would otherwise require a single judgment.²⁵ (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)

In this case, Maurice V. Bane is a vital witness in the main Civil Case No. 0009 and the incidental Civil Case No. 0130. In fact, as pointed out by Justice Brion, in petitioner's Pre-Trial Brief dated 30 August 1996, petitioner offered to present Maurice V. Bane as one of the witnesses in the main Civil Case No. 0009. Thus, when petitioner filed on 25 September 1996 its Second Amended Notice to Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination, in Civil Case No. 0009 in connection with Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789, petitioner emphasized that [t]he deposition of said witness shall be used in evidence in Incident Case No. 0130-G.R. No. 10779 as well as in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009. In fact, all the respondents were given the chance to be heard considering that all the defendants of Civil Case No. 0009 were given notice of the scheduled testimony by oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane, which was taken on 23 and 24 October 1996. This is very clear from petitioners Second Amended Notice to Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination, filed on 25 September 1996, in Civil Case No. 0009 in connection with Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789, thus:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN

MANILA

Third Division

Republic of the Philippines,

Plaintiff,

CIVIL CASE NO. 0009

-versus- (Incident Case No. 0130

and G.R. No. 107789)

JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

x---------------------------------- x

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF MR. MAURICE V. BANE UPON ORAL EXAMINATION

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to Rule 24 ²⁶ of the Revised Rules of Court, notice is hereby given to defendants Jose L. Africa (deceased) thru his Estate represented by Victor Africa and Atty. Juan de Ocampo and Atty. Yolanda Javellana, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos (deceased) thru his Estate represented by Special Administratrix BIR Commissioner Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio thru their counsels on records that Plaintiff thru the undersigned counsel will take the testimony by oral deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane c/o Cable & Wireless Plc., 124 Theobalds Road, London WC1X 8RX, England on October 23, 24 and 25, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., until finished before the Philippine Consul General in London, England, in his office or in a suitable place in London or in Wales, England, as may be advised to the parties.

The purpose of the deposition is for Mr. Maurice Bane to identify and testify on the facts set forth in his Affidavit hereto attached as Annex A so as to prove the ownership issue in favor of plaintiff and/or establish prima facie factual foundation for sequestration of Easterns Class A stock in support of the Very Urgent Petition For Authority To Hold Special Stockholders Meeting For the Sole Purpose of Increasing Easterns Authorized Capital Stock (Incident Case No. 0130 G.R. No. 107789). The deposition of said witness shall be used in evidence in Incident Case No. 0130-G.R. No. 107789 as well as in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009. (Underscoring in the original; boldfacing supplied)

In his modified draft Decision, Justice Brion maintains that respondents' notice of the taking of the Bane deposition is insufficient waiver of their right to appear and cross-examine the deponent when they failed to show up at the deposition-taking. Justice Brion insists that respondents cannot be bound by the taking of the Bane deposition without the consequent impairment of their right to cross-examine.²⁷

I disagree. The 12 April 1993 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan, ordering the consolidation of the incidental cases, including Civil Case No. 0130, with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, effectively merged the different actions into one single action. The consolidation of the cases was meant to expeditiously settle the interwoven issues involved in the consolidated cases. The simplification of the proceedings with the aim of affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases before the courts can be achieved when repetition of the same evidence or presentation of identical witnesses is dispensed with. This means that evidence, such as depositions, taken after the consolidation is admissible in all the actions consolidated whenever relevant or material. In this case, since the notice and the deposition-taking was after the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with the main case, Civil Case No. 0009, the deposition could be admitted as evidence in the consolidated cases. This Court has even held in Yu, Sr. v. Basilio G. Magno Construction and Development Enterprises, Inc.²⁸ that in consolidated cases, [t]he evidence in each case effectively became the evidence of both, and there ceased to exist any need for the deciding judge to take judicial notice of the evidence presented in each case. Besides, even assuming that the 12 April 1993 Resolution of the Sandiganbayan merely ordered a joint hearing or a consolidation for trial, private respondents are still bound by the Bane deposition considering that they were given notice of the deposition-taking. The evidence adduced in a joint trial binds all the parties. Otherwise, what would be the point of holding a joint trial if common witnesses have to be presented again in each of the cases and the same evidence offered again and again? Precisely, a joint trial aims to prevent repetition of the same or common evidence and to spare the common witnesses from the unnecessary inconvenience of testifying on the same issues in separate proceedings if the cases were not jointly tried. To rule otherwise is to frustrate the purpose of a joint trial which is to prevent delay and save unnecessary costs and expense.²⁹

In Tan v. Lim,³⁰ the Court even allowed evidence that has not been formally offered in a case which was jointly heard with another case because evidence offered during the joint hearing was deemed evidence for both cases which were jointly heard. The Court ruled:

It may be true that Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules directs the court to consider no evidence which has not been formally offered and that under Section 35, documentary evidence is offered after presentation of testimonial evidence. However, a liberal interpretation of these Rules would have convinced the trial court that a separate formal offer of evidence in Civil Case No. 6518 was superfluous because not only was an offer of evidence made in Civil Case No. 6521 that was being jointly heard by the trial court, counsel for Jose Renato Lim had already declared he was adopting these evidences for Civil Case No. 6518. The trial court itself stated that it would freely utilize in one case evidence adduced in the other only to later abandon this posture. Jose Renato Lim testified in Civil Case No. 6518. The trial court should have at least considered his testimony since at the time it was made, the Rules provided that testimonial evidence is deemed offered at the time the witness is called to testify. Rules of procedure should not be applied in a very rigid, technical case as they are devised chiefly to secure and not defeat substantial justice.³¹

Furthermore, Justice Brion posits that in determining the admissibility of the Bane deposition, not only Section 4, Rule 23 must be considered but also Section 47, Rule 130. The said provisions read:

Sec. 4. [Rule 23] Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions:

(a) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of deponent as witness;

Sec. 47. [Rule 130] Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. The testimony or deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-examine him. (Emphasis supplied)

In my opinion, Section 47, Rule 130 does not apply in this case since the Bane deposition was not taken in a former case or proceeding. The records show that the Bane deposition was taken when the cases were already consolidated. Clearly, there is no former proceeding to speak of which would require the application of Section 47, Rule 130. The Bane deposition was taken in CIVIL CASE NO. 0009 (Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789). In fact, in the Second Amended Notice to Take Deposition of Mr. Maurice V. Bane Upon Oral Examination, filed on 25 September 1996, the title of the case was REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, versus JOSE L. AFRICA, ET AL., Defendants with case number CIVIL CASE NO. 0009 (Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789). Thus, Justice Brions reliance on Section 47, Rule 130 is misplaced. Besides, even if Section 47 is applicable, the Bane deposition may still be given in evidence against the respondents since all of them were given notice of the deposition, and thus had the opportunity to cross-examine the deponent had they participated in the deposition-taking. Since notices have been duly served on all the respondents, those who failed to show up at the deposition-taking are deemed to have waived their right to appear and cross-examine the deponent.

In this case, the Sandiganbayan granted the request for the taking of the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, who was Executive Vice-President and Treasurer of ETPI from 1974 until his retirement in 1987.³² In October 1996, during the deposition-taking, Maurice V. Bane was already 72 years old and residing at 1 Ecton Hall, Church Way, Ecton, Northants (England).³³ Clearly, under Section 4(c)(2) of Rule 23,³⁴ the deposition of Maurice V. Bane can be used as direct evidence. In fact, in its Resolutions issued on 21 August 2000 and 3 April 2001, the Sandiganbayan stated that the deposition of Maurice V. Bane has become part and parcel of the record of this main case (Civil Case No. 0009) since Civil Case No. 0130 is an incident to the same.

A cursory reading of the Bane deposition, which took two days to complete and covers 211 pages of the transcript of record of the proceedings and the testimony, reveals that it is a critical and vital evidence in the case of petitioner against private respondents with regard to its allegation in Civil Case No. 0009 that private respondents shareholdings in ETPI were illegally purchased and rightly belongs to the Government.

The testimony of the witness, Maurice V. Bane, was offered for the following purposes:

[I]n general the testimony is offered to prove that the Class A stockholdings in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines Inc, or Eastern for short, otherwise referred to as the Filipino 60% equity, is ill gotten in nature; that the actual and/or beneficial owner of said shares was the late President Ferdinand Marcos; and that accordingly, said shares are subject to reversion and/or forfeiture in favor of the Plaintiff Republic of the Philippines in this case. Specifically, the testimony is offered to establish the environmental facts and attendant circumstances surrounding the formation and organization of Eastern in 1974; that there was duress and/or compulsion exerted upon Cable & Wireless and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Eastern Extension Australasia Telegraph Company, of which the witness was the then General Manager in the Philippines, such that Cable & Wireless and Eastern Extension Australasia were forced or compelled to give up their legitimate business activities in the Philippines which was 100% British owned in favor of Eastern, which was to be newly organized as a 60/40 Filipino company, with 40% being for the account of the company of the witness, Mr. Bane.

In short, the witness will establish in these proceedings that President Marcos and/or his emissaries or parties acting on his behalf gave the witness only two possible options which was: (1) a 40% equity in the company to be newly organized, which is Eastern in exchange for surrendering all of the assets and franchise of Eastern Extension Australasia; or 100% of nothing, meaning that if the witness and his company refused to give up their legitimate business in the Philippines then Marcos made it clear that there will be no more Eastern Extension Australasia that would be operating in the Philippines.

Lastly, the testimony is offered to prove the ownership issue that is involved in this case in favor of the Plaintiff, and also support the pending petition of Eastern Telecoms to increase its authorized capital stock from the present 250 million pesos to 4 billion pesos by allowing the PCGG to vote the sequestered Class A stock in the company. Hence, the testimony will establish the prima facie factual foundation for maintaining the sequestration of the Class A stock.³⁵

In the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, he identified and affirmed his Affidavit ³⁶ dated 9 January 1999. Excerpts from Bane's testimony during the deposition-taking are as follow:

MR. LIM: Mr. Bane, paragraph 2 of your affidavit refers to a company ETPI, the acronym in letter ETPI. May I ask you, sir, what is ETPI?

A That's Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Incorporated.

Q ETPI and Eastern refer to the same company, which is Eastern Telecoms or the full name thereof, Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc?

A That's correct, yes.

Q Again, your Honor, for consistency in the proceedings, instead of ETPI, the questions and the answers will refer to Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc as simply Eastern. Paragraph 2 also of your affidavit refers to EEATC. Please, sir, tell us, Mr. Bane, what position, what particular position you held in EEATC when it was operating in the Philippines?

A I was the general manager.

Q Was that the highest position in the Philippines? Was that the highest office in EEATC in the Philippine operation?

A Yes, it was, yes, the British terminology for these things quite often is that we always used to refer to managers but the American terminology, of course, is usually president it was the equivalent of.

Q Thank you, sir. Now, just for clarity can you elaborate on what was EEATC in relation to Cable and Wireless or C&W?

MR. AFRICA: He has already answered, your Honor.

A Yes, it was a wholly, 100% owned subsidiary of Cable and Wireless.³⁷

x x x

Q x x x Mr. Bane, I would refer you back to paragraph 3 of your affidavit, sir. I noted from your narration in paragraph 3 that the earth satellite stations contract which you had just explained was awarded after bidding by President Marcos to a company you mentioned here which is Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, or POTC. My question is: do you know this POTC, what was it?

A Yes, it was the - - I think I'm correct in saying - - it was the management arm of Philcomsat. Philcomsat, Philippines Telecommunications Satellite Corporation. POTC, well the managers of Philcomsat, and I understand that the shareholders were the same in each case.

Q In this paragraph, sir, you stated in reference to Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation or POTC that it was relatively unknown in the international telecommunications industry. Could you explain that?³⁸

x x x

A Well, there were some, I should imagine, some ten or twelve companies were bidding or hoping to be awarded the earth station contract. Among those was my own company, Eastern - - EEATC. We had not heard of, any of us: RCA, ITT, the large number of other domestic companies such as Clavicili and others, were all bidding for this earth station and none of us had heard of POTC until it suddenly emerged that it was a company that had been formed and that very shortly after our bids all went in, we heard that it had been, that the contract had been awarded to Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corporation.

Q Thank you, sir. (Off the record) May I proceed, your Honor? Did you find out who were the people behind POTC?

A Yes.

Q And who were they?

A To the best of my recollection the incorporators were Potenciano Ilusorio, Honorio Poblador, Ambassador Nieto, Ambassador Benedicto, and I think there were two other gentlemen, one of them I think was the brother in law of Mr. Nieto and the other one I cannot recall - - no, I can't recall his name. He died fairly soon after, I think, that was formed.³⁹

x x x

MR. LIM: Mr. Bane, you mentioned personalities like Potenciano Ilusorio, Honorio Poblador, Manuel Nieto Jr., Roberto Benedicto. My question to you, sir, is: what was your personal impression of these gentlemen vis-a-vis, for instance, the Marcos administration?

A Well, it was common knowledge among the expatriate, senior expatriate community that these gentlemen were close associates of President Marcos.

MR. AFRICA: May I also object again, your Honor please, to the statement of the witness. Again, it's not a statement of fact but only a matter of discussion among his co-workers, but facts again are different from what his perception was.

MR. LIM: That is noted, your Honor.

CONSUL GENERAL: That is noted, Mr. Africa.

MR. LIM: Mr. Witness, was this group of people, these gentlemen or personalities that you have mentioned, do you know if they were later on identified with any particular business or industry sector in the Philippines?

A Yes, they were identified with telecommunication interests.

Q Was there an occasion when your own company, EEATC, forged a partnership or business with POTC?

A Yes, there was.

Q What was the business that the two companies forged or engaged in?

A That business was to establish a tropospheric scatter system between the Philippines and Taiwan. In actual fact, it was three companies involved: it was POTC and also Western Union International in the United States, and Eastern Extension or EEATC.

x x x

Q So that tropospheric scatter system became operational?

A Oh yes, yes.

Q Do you know if the system was inaugurated?

A It was, yes.

Q Who were the principal guests during the inauguration?

A President and Mrs. Marcos.

Q Now what technical qualification did your company, EEATC, have to operate that tropospheric scatter system?

A In addition to being a 20% stockholder, my company was appointed as managers. Eastern, with the backing of Cable & Wireless, was able to provide all the necessary technical expertise for the implementation and operation of the system. Cable & Wireless as such has done these systems, a large number of these systems worldwide, so we had all the experience necessary.

Q At that time, meaning at the time this tropospheric scatter system was established, what was your company then, what was your company at that time?

A Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telegraph.

Q EEATC?

A EEATC.

Q If you don't mind, sir, kindly refer to that as EEATC instead of Eastern. What technical qualification did POTC have to be able to be EEATC's partner in this tropospheric system business?

A To the best of my knowledge little or no technical qualification.⁴⁰

x x x

Q Now Mr. Bane, let me now take you to paragraph 5 of your affidavit and if I may read to you, sir. Paragraph 5: When President Marcos declared Martial Law in September 1972, it was clear that his grip on the country was virtually complete. C&W was fully aware of its uneasy tenure in the Philippines. In March 1973, then Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile called us to a conference at Camp Crame. I attended said meeting together with the representatives of RCA and Globe Mackay. Secretary Enrile firmly told us that we had until July 1974 to organize ourselves into 60/40 corporations with Filipino majority ownership and, if we did not comply, the Government would take the necessary action. First of all, please explain and elucidate on your statement C&W was aware of its uneasy tenure in the Philippines.

A Well, prior to Martial Law we were operating quite comfortably as a company, but with the implementation of Martial Law there was great deal of uncertainty as to what might happen in the country under Martial Law. In other countries it had been known that things were, shall we say, nationalized or taken over and, of course, there was a certain degree of unease among us when we discussed in the Cable & Wireless that something similar might happen in the Philippines.

Q Now you made mention in this paragraph that I read of other companies, namely RCA and Globe Mackay. What were these companies?

A They were similar to EEATC, operating in exactly the same fashion, doing the same type of business, all three of us were competing against each other for international business.

Q Do you know the nationality of RCA and Globe Mackay?

A They were both 100% American corporations.

Q Whereas EEATC was, according to you, 100% British?

A That is correct, yes.

Q Except for that difference in the nationality the three of you, meaning EEATC, RCA and Globe Mackay, were engaged in the same kind of business which was telecommunications in the Philippines?

A Correct.

x x x

Q Now, can you remember where in Camp Crame this meeting took place?

A Yes, it was in a fairly large boardroom. I would imagine the table was large enough to accommodate about 16 people. I had the impression that it was the board room perhaps attached to the Secretary of Defense's office in Camp Crame.

Q Now, was it actually Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile who met with you?

A Yes, it was.

Q In person?

A In person.

Q Now, in paragraph 6 of your affidavit which is a reference to what transpired in that meeting, you stated, and I would like to quote the short sentence in paragraph 6: I pointed out that - - I withdraw the question. Mr. Witness, what transpired in this meeting with Secretary Enrile? In other words, why did he call you together with RCA and Globe Mackay people to a meeting?

A Well, he said, as far as I can recall and after all it's a long time ago, he recalled that the meeting was to in effect spell out the rules in terms of telecommunications. He pointed out to RCA and ITT that under the Laurel-Langley Act, which was due I think in July 1974 to expire, that they would have to go 60% Philippine ownership. I think that I'm pretty sure that Mr. Voss or his lawyer did say that their franchise in actual fact was established in 1924 and therefore it fell without, beyond the Laurel-Langley Act, but I seem to recall that Attorney Enrile said that that's not germane, you will go 60/40. He also said to us, EEATC, that you will go 60/40.

x x x

MR. LIM: x x x My question, sir, is: what exactly did Secretary Enrile tell you, and I refer to your person, and your lawyer who was with you, Attorney Luciano Salazar?

A After he dealt with RCA and Globe Mackay, I said to him: well, the Laurel-Langley Act does not apply to EEATC; we are 100% British corporation, our franchise goes back to 1880 and we were the first company, actually, to connect the Philippines to the outside world in communications, granted by Queen Isabella of Spain, I think, and after the War, the Second World War, the franchise was renewed by President Quirino in 1952, I think it was.

x x x

Q You mean to tell the court that Secretary Enrile also included your company EEATC to be made 60/40?

A Oh yes.

Q Now, your companion, Attorney Luciano Salazar, did he say anything to Mr. Enrile?

A Yes, he did.

Q What was his remark or explanation if any?

A He said that the franchise was perfectly constitutional and that Mr. Bane was quite correct and that legally there was no reason for Eastern to go 60/40.

Q When you say now, just now Eastern you are referring to EEATC?

A EEATC, yes.

x x x

MR. LIM: Did Secretary Enrile respond favorably to the explanations of Attorney Salazar?

A No, he did not. He said that if EEATC did not move to a 60/40 position then there would be no EEATC.

x x x

Q What options did Secretary Enrile give you during this meeting?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor please, which is that Secretary Enrile is the best witness for this particular aspect.

MR. LIM: Same request for - - subject to a court ruling later.

A Two options really: to become 60/40 Filipino corporation or to, in effect, have 100% of nothing, because there would not be any EEATC.⁴¹

x x x

MR. LIM: Thank you, your Honor. Mr. Bane, we ended your testimony with your confirmation that the events narrated in paragraph 7 up to paragraph 14 of your affidavit all transpired after that meeting in March 1973 with Secretary Enrile, so my question now is: in particular what followed after that meeting with Secretary Enrile, was the formation and organization of Eastern in 1974?

A Mmm.

Q Is that correct?

A Well, yes, the events really were I had to advise Cable & Wireless Hong Kong, who were very closely connected with the Philippines, of the situation and I said we had no alternative but to go to a 60/40 corporation. It was decided that I should come back to London and discuss it with the directors of Cable & Wireless in London. Also, we were asked at the meeting, which perhaps I forgot earlier on, by Secretary Enrile for progress reports of moving to 60/40 corporation. So I wrote a letter to Secretary Enrile and said that we were now actively planning and that I had already spoken to one or two other telecommunication corporations but that I had to return to London to discuss it with my senior directors. It was difficult at that time because it was Martial Law. No people were allowed to leave the Philippines so, through that letter, I made an application to leave and I was granted leave to come back to the UK to discuss with Cable & Wireless the formation of a 60/40 corporation.

Q Eventually, after clearing all those hurdles, after doing all the groundwork, I mean after passing through all the groundwork and the details, eventually what transpired was the organization of Eastern in 1974 as a 60/40 Filipino corporation?

A That is correct, yes.

Q And the 40% or minority equity was taken by your company, Cable & Wireless?

A Correct, yes.

Q Mr. Bane, would you, and I refer to your person, have agreed to divest of 100% British owned EEATC if pressure was not exerted on you by Secretary Enrile?

MR. AFRICA: Objected to, your Honor please, no relevance.

MR. LIM: I am asking the witness for his answer to the basic facts that now present themselves as a result of the previous testimony.

MR. AFRICA: The same objection, your Honor. It calls for a personal opinion.

MR. LIM: Subject to the court's ruling may I ask the witness to answer? May I repeat the question, sir? Would you, and I refer to you person, have acceded or agreed to divesting yourself of 100% British owned EEATC in favor of only 40% equity in a new corporation, if pressure was not exerted on you by Secretary Enrile?

A No, I would not; I would have continued with EEATC as 100% British Corporation. You see, you have to appreciate that I had all the resources and all the backing and all the financial support of Cable & Wireless who were the largest telecommunications operator in the world. We could have quite easily and I know that finance would have been available from them we could have quite easily continued as 100% British corporation.

Q Would Cable & Wireless, your own company, have agreed to the divestment of 100% British owned EEATC if pressure was not exerted by Secretary Enrile?

A No, I don't think they would.

x x x

MR. LIM: In other words, you are saying that had it not been for that fateful meeting with Secretary Enrile and the pressure was brought to bear on your person and your company you would not have agreed to organizing Eastern in 1974?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor, please, calling for an opinion and a conclusion.

A No, I would not.

MR. LIM: And the same thing is true with your company, C&W, there would have been no permission or approval from C&W?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor, please.

A No, they would not.

MR. LIM: And when you say no, you would not, you are saying that your person and C&W would not have agreed to divesting EEATC of 100% British control?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor, please.

A Correct.

MR. LIM: He said That's correct. Did you, and I refer to your person, or Attorney Salazar check or try to find out if Secretary Enrile was acting for President Marcos in reference to this March 1973 meeting?

A No, no we didn't. It was under Martial Law and I mean when you spoke of President Marcos you spoke of Secretary Enrile, they were the two very close people. Martial Law, after all, was declared as a result of an apparent attempted assassination on Secretary Enrile. There was no point in us trying to appeal to President Marcos. We had to accept that what Secretary Enrile said was in effect President Marcos.⁴²

x x x

MR LIM.: Now, subject to the same request for a later ruling from the court, do I understand it, Mr. Bane, that initially you were talking to Ilusorio and Poblador?

A That's correct.

Q But later in the negotiations the two were out and you were now just talking to Mr Nieto?

A Not just to Mr. Nieto; we were also talking to Attorney Jose Africa.

Q So let me clarify that. After the Enrile meeting and because of your decision to just go along with what Enrile wanted, there was this process set into motion to organize a new outfit and at the start you were talking to Ilusorio and Poblador, is that right?

A Correct.

Q Later on, and this was before Eastern was organized, you continued the negotiations, this time with Ambassador Manuel Nieto junior and Attorney Jose L. Africa, is that correct?

A Correct.

Q Now, there is a statement in paragraph 9: We learned much later that this was upon the instructions of President Marcos. Who told you that President Marcos had issued the instruction to be dealing with Nieto?

MR. AFRICA: Objected to, your Honor, asking for

MR. LIM: I am asking the source of the statement.

MR. AFRICA: My objections, I am just putting it on record: objected to for asking for hearsay evidence.

MR. LIM: Subject to a later ruling, your Honor.

A It was either Ambassador Nieto or Attorney Africa.

Q Now, I show you paragraph 10 of your affidavit which is continued, I am sorry I show you paragraph 10, I draw your attention to paragraph 10 of your affidavit which is found on page 4. Do you confirm and ratify in particular what is stated in paragraph 10 of the affidavit?

MR. AFRICA: Subject to question and answer later on, your Honor, please.

A Yes.

MR. LIM: Thank you, sir. May I request, your Honor, that the entire paragraph 10 be sub marked as Exhibit C-12-C-1 and that the last sentence therein reading: Africa quickly spelt out the rules that they were interested in the proposition and that we were to deal only with the BAN group (composed of Roberto Benedicto, Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr.,). We were informed that this was at the express wish of President Marcos who had appointed their group to control telecommunications interests; that that particular sentence be now underscored but same would be part of C-12-C-1 which is the entire paragraph 10, but the last sentence I request that it be underlined or underscored for emphasis. (Marked)

Q What participation did you have in the organization of Eastern?

A I was very deeply involved, together with our director from London, Wilfred H. Davies and also our finance director, David West.

Q Were you one of the incorporators of Eastern?

A I was, yes.

Q Did you sign the Articles of Incorporation of Eastern?

A I did.

Q Would you have agreed to be one of the incorporators of Eastern and signed its Articles if no pressure was exerted on you by Secretary Enrile?

MR. AFRICA: Objected to, your Honor, please.

MR. LIM: I request an answer for the same reason.

A No, I don't think I would.

Q What is that, Mr Bane?

A No, I would not, no.

Q You are telling the honorable court that your agreeing to incorporate Eastern and your having signed the Articles of Eastern was the result of that pressure during the Enrile meeting in March of 1973?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor.

A Yes, that is correct, because we would have continued as 100% British corporation. So the pressure was brought to bear upon us to go to a 60/40 corporation.

MR. LIM: I notice from the Articles of Incorporation of Eastern that you are the Treasurer in Trust, that you were the Treasurer in Trust, meaning the Treasurer upon the incorporation of Eastern?

A Yes, that's true.⁴³

x x x

MR. LIM: That is the tenor of the affidavit. Just to satisfy that concern I will rephrase the question. Do you know what happened to the assets of EEATC when Eastern was incorporated on June 10, 1974?

A Yes, Eastern purchased all the assets of EEATC.

Q I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 12 of your affidavit which I read: The figure eventually negotiated for the assets (net book value only and no good will) was ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) on the basis of which the BAN group will put up six million pesos (P6,000,000.00). Further meetings took place to finalize the details but Africa later informed us that they could not raise the required amount. As a compromise, he suggested that the new corporation raise a bank loan from which C&W could be paid. While we were not happy with this arrangement, we resigned ourselves to the fact that we would have to accede. It was agreed that stockholders' contribution would be five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) plus a bank loan of seven million pesos (P7,000,000.00) to cover asset payment and working capital. Africa then advised that they could only raise one million pesos (P1,000,000.00) and C&W could loan them two million pesos (P2,000,000.00). Again, we were unhappy but again we complied. My question is: do you confirm the correctness of this narration including the figures mentioned here?

MR. AFRICA: Subject to question and answer, your Honor please, as there are statements which are of conclusion and/or hearsay.

A Yes, I do confirm that that's precisely what happened.

MR. LIM: What this one million pesos which was the amount that the Africa group said they could only raise, what was this one million?

A Well, it was their contribution to the capital of the company.

Q Aside from the one million pesos contribution to the capital of Eastern from the Filipino group of Benedicto, Africa, and Nieto, do you know if additional contributions in terms of money were made by them afterwards?

A Well, in as much as that they repaid the loans that C&W granted them out of the dividends yes, there were in effect contributions, I suppose.

Q How much was the amount of the loan?

A Two million pesos.

Q That two million pesos loan was repaid by the Filipino group out of stock dividends?

A No, out of yes, stock dividends, yes, cash dividends.

Q Cash dividends?

A Cash dividends as I recall.

Q Now, aside from that were there any subsequent contributions to the capital of Eastern from the Filipino group?

A Not as far as I can recall, no.

Q So in terms of cold cash or money, what they contributed initially was only one million pesos?

A Correct.

Q The loan that they got from C&W of two million was repaid to the company, or to C&W in terms of the dividends?

MR. AFRICA: Already answered, your Honor.

A Yes, yes, correct.

MR. LIM: Who granted the loan to the Filipino group?

A The Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank. Well, they didn't grant it to the Filipino group; they granted it to Eastern.

Q And was there a guarantee made for that loan?

MR. AFRICA: Leading, your Honor please.

A Yes, a guarantee was made by Cable & Wireless.

MR. LIM: I request, your Honor, for emphasis that paragraph 12 of the affidavit which has been read into the record and which has been confirmed by the witness be bracketed and sub marked as Exhibit C-12-d-1, paragraph 12. (Marked)

Mr Bane, would you or your company Cable & Wireless have agreed to that kind of payment arrangement, which is to pay in dividends, if it were not for the pressure from Secretary Enrile?

MR. AFRICA: Same objection, your Honor please.

A No, we would not; it wasn't, it was not standard business practice in any way at all. We would not normally have agreed to a condition such as that.

x x x

Q Mr Bane, what was the position of Manuel Nieto Jr. in Eastern after incorporation?

A He was the President.

x x x

Q Now, Mr Bane, paragraph 13 of your affidavit mentions that: Attorney Luciano Salazar drafted the Presidential Decree for the transfer of EEATC's franchise to Eastern, that said draft decree was personally delivered to Manuel Nieto, Jr., who committed to secure President Marcos' approval and signature. Do I take it that this was in 1974 contemporaneously with the organization of Eastern?

A Yes, it was.

Q You said Manuel Nieto Jr., was the Eastern President?

A That's correct.

Q Was Mr. Nieto able to secure the approval of President Marcos to the transfer of EEATC's franchise to Eastern?

A Yes, he was, it was issued under Presidential Decree.

Q If I show you a copy of that Presidential Decree would you be able to recognize it in the sense that it refers to your company, the former EEATC, not former, the EEATC?

A Yes. (Handed)

Q At this point, your Honor, I make of record that this representation has handed to Mr. Maurice Bane Exhibit C Motion Increase in Capital.

A Yes, that is indeed the Presidential Decree.

Q Your Honor, may I make a little correction in my manifestation. What I handed to the witness is a photocopy of Presidential Decree 489 ⁴⁴ with the Exhibit marking being reproduced as part of the document, the document actually marked as Exhibit C is now part of the case records. Now, Mr. Witness, please tell the court whether you had any personal participation in the preparation of this particular decree PD 489?

A Yes, I did. I consulted with Attorney Salazar. We went through the Eastern franchise and so to that extent, in putting this together, yes I did co-operate with Attorney Salazar, although of course Attorney Salazar was the prime person behind drafting the document.

Q Your affidavit mentions that this was approved by President Marcos in the entirety of the draft decree as prepared by Attorney Salazar and you, meaning no correction was made by Malacaang. My question is: what did that convey to you, meaning the fact that Marcos approved the Presidential Decree drafted by Attorney Salazar and yourself without revision or amendment?

MR. AFRICA: Objected to, your Honor please, asking for an opinion and a conclusion.

MR. LIM: That is very relevant, your Honor, the witness having participated in preparing this.

MR. AFRICA: Anyway, my objection is on the record.

A Well, Mr. Nieto undertook and promised us that he would get the draft Presidential Decree signed into law by President Marcos.

MR. LIM: And was he able to deliver on his promise?

A He certainly was. You can see the signature on the bottom.

Q Witness referring to

A I do recognize that signature, yes, as President Marcos' signature.

Q Your Honor, at this point may I request that this draft I'm sorry that this copy of PD 489 be again marked in this deposition proceedings as Exhibit D Deposition Bane and the signature of President Marcos at the bottom of page 2 pointed at by the witness be sub marked and bracketed as D-1 Deposition Bane. (Marked)

Mr. Bane, did you also serve as director of Eastern, one of the directors, I mean, of Eastern?

A Yes, I was for a time, a short period of time.

Q Now, after Eastern's incorporation in 1974 did you carry on as an officer of Eastern?

A Yes, I did.

Q What positions?

A Executive Vice President and Treasurer.

Q And as you said this was up to 1987?

A Yes.

x x x

Q Would you have acceded to that kind of set up, meaning having Filipino partners in the persons of Mr. Nieto and later Attorney Africa if it were not for the pressure from Secretary Enrile during your March 1973 meeting?

MR. AFRICA: Already answered, your Honor please.

A I can only repeat what I said before, that no, of course I would not.

MR. LIM: Now, during your stint with Eastern in association with Mr. Nieto and later with Attorney Jose Africa, do you know of instances when President Marcos intervened on behalf of Eastern, or showed personal interest for Eastern?

MR. AFRICA: Question is vague and intervene is an all-encompassing word.

MR. LIM: I reform, your Honor. Mr Bane, you said that from 1974 continuously up to 1987 you were associated with Eastern, you were one of its officers and you were working with Filipino directors or officers. During this time the President of the Philippines of course was continuously Mr. Marcos. My question, sir, is: during your incumbency in Eastern do you know of instances when President Marcos helped your company obtain correspondenceships, or in its competition with PLDT?

A Yes, I do, yes.

Q In what way did Marcos help Eastern?

A Well, once the company was formed and under the formation of the company Eastern or Cable & Wireless had a management contract to manage the company, we could see that telecommunications development was very badly needed in the Philippines. The satellite earth station had been constructed and the Tropo had gone in, but there was still a very large demand for circuits. We therefore devised a plan to put underseas cables, telephone cables, from the Philippines to Japan, from the Philippines to Hong Kong, Philippines to Singapore and then latterly Philippines to Taiwan. For that we obviously needed approvals right at the top, because we were, in effect, in competition with PLDT. PLDT were really dragging their heels in development, perhaps because of lack of financing or whatever. So we saw an opportunity to perhaps establish Eastern as a major player in the Philippines telecommunications. I therefore drafted a letter which was what is the word I'm looking for perhaps which was fine tuned perhaps is the best word, by Attorney Jose Africa. And this set out Eastern's plans for development of submarine cable systems and everything else, and we asked at the bottom of the letter for Presidential approval. And this letter was signed by Ambassador Nieto; it was taken to Malacaang and it was signed, written across the top of the page, I think the words were just Approved, President Marcos so we received approval, direct approval from President Marcos to proceed with the implementation of this very big cable project. It meant to say that we had bypassed the national telecommunications commission under whose authority this would normally have been submitted, but knowing as we did that with PLDT's opposition we probably wouldn't have got it through the NTC.

Q So it was President Marcos himself who gave the approval for Eastern to undertake the construction of these submarine cables that you mentioned?

A That's correct, yes.

Q And can you tell us the significance of that designation, what happened to Eastern because it got this project?

A Well, by putting in the submarine cable systems, since we were financing them, we had to have the approval of, of course, the distant administration in this case Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan, so one of the benefits that accrued from this was that we became a telephone correspondent to these countries. After all, these cables were very high capacity. I think to Hong Kong they were 1380 telephone circuits, to Japan 960 telephone circuits, so that what it did it was for the great benefit of the Philippines. We used the phrase in the letter to make the Philippines the hub of telecommunications in South East Asia, which we hoped we were going to do and I think to a large extent we did do. The ultimate benefit to Eastern was quite considerable, it enormously increased cash flow and of course from that we financed the cables.⁴⁵

x x x

Q Mr. Bane, you stated that you were with Eastern for 21 years?

A That's correct, yes.

Q 21 continuous years.

A With EEATC and with Eastern.

x x x

Q Mr. Bane, were there other stockholders of Class A during this 21 year period?

A The only changes that I was aware of that were made was that Attorney Jose Africa pointed out to me, after the incorporation, that they wanted to put some of the stock, or they would put some of the stock in the name of various companies. He also mentioned that of course they were going to put some small, a very small minority of shares in the names of family members. That's as far as I knew.

Q These companies, what companies were these? Or rather, excuse me sir, rather what would be the nature of these companies?

A I don't know, I don't know what the companies were. I do know the names. I think Ambassador Nieto's was Aerocom, was Ambassador Benedicto's Universal Molasses, I can't remember? And then Attorney Jose Africa, I think,was Polygon.

Q Now having been associated with Manuel Nieto Jr. and Jose L. Africa and also Mr. Benedicto for many years, did you come to know at any time during that period of association with them whether President Marcos had any participation or control in their stockholdings in Eastern?

MR. AFRICA: Please, objected to, your Honor, witness isn't competent. The best witnesses would be the persons themselves, not what this witness has been told.

MR. LIM: If the witness knows, your Honor.

MR. AFRICA: But what he was told, not what is true, or what is true and correct?

A No, I was not told that President Marcos had a stockholding in Eastern. There was, of course, speculation among ourselves as to in a vague sort of way we often wondered. The only time that I actually knew that President Marcos had a significant stockholding in Eastern was when, after sequestration, Ambassador Nieto went on to television and stated on television that I think first of all he stated something about Philcomsat POTC and he then stated on television that President Marcos owned 40% of the stock of Eastern. That's the only time that I was, I had any direct, shall we say, or had been directly informed by television of course that President Marcos was a stockholder.⁴⁶

In the 2006 case of Yuchengco v. Sandiganbayan,⁴⁷ this Court overturned the ruling of the Sandiganbayans Partial Decision and held that the testimonies through depositions of Campos, Gapud and de Guzman established the Marcoses beneficial ownership of Prime Holding Incorporated (PHI). The Court ruled that the testimonies of Campos, Gapud, and de Guzman, persons who actually participated in the formation and early years of operation of PHI, constitute evidence that directly addresses the critical issue.⁴⁸

In this case, the deponent Maurice V. Bane was the Executive Vice-President and Treasurer of ETPI from 1974 until his retirement in 1987. Maurice V. Bane had personal knowledge of and involvement in the circumstances leading to the formation of ETPI in 1974, which is crucial to petitioners allegation that private respondents interest in ETPI rightfully belongs to the Government. To dismiss the Bane deposition as inadmissible based on the tenuous ground that there was no actual consolidation of cases is to disregard the obvious fact that the Bane deposition was taken in CIVIL CASE NO. 0009 (Incident Case No. 0130 and G.R. No. 107789) and that all the defendants (now private respondents) in Civil Case No. 0009 were duly notified of the scheduled deposition-taking.

Although petitioner, in its formal offer of evidence in Civil Case No. 0009, inadvertently omitted the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, petitioner thereafter filed an urgent motion praying that it be allowed to introduce as additional evidence the deposition of Maurice V. Bane. The Sandiganbayan should have granted this motion or the succeeding Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane) filed on 16 November 2001. As held in the 1997 case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Third Division):⁴⁹

In all cases involving alleged ill-gotten wealth brought by or against the Presidential Commission on Good Government, it is the policy of this Court to set aside technicalities and formalities that serve merely to delay or impede their judicious resolution. This Court prefers to have such cases resolved on the merits before the Sandiganbayan. Substantial justice to all parties, not mere legalisms or perfection of form, should now be relentlessly pursued. Eleven years have passed since the government started its search for and reversion of such alleged ill-gotten wealth. The definitive resolution of such cases on the merits is thus long overdue. If there is adequate proof of illegal acquisition, accumulation, misappropriation, fraud or illicit conduct, let it be brought out now.⁵⁰

Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 7 February 2002 should be reversed and set aside. The deposition of Maurice V. Bane taken on 23 to 24 October 1996, together with the accompanying documentary exhibits, should be admitted as part of petitioners evidence. I vote to GRANT the petition and REMAND this case to the Sandiganbayan for further proceedings.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

1Under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 See Petition for Certiorari, dated 14 March 2002, p. 12; rollo, p. 13.

3Upon his demise, Jose L. Africa was eventually substituted by his heirs as defendants in Civil Case No. 0009. Victor Africa is one of the legal representatives/forced heirs of deceased respondent Jose L. Africa; Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 1 April 1998, p. 6; rollo, p. 336.

4Promulgated on 15 April 1993.

5See Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 1 April 1998, p. 5; rollo, p. 335; Records, pp. 6646-6649.

6 Rollo, pp. 68-71.

7Id. at 322-329.

8See Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 1 April 1998, p. 6; rollo, p. 336.

9Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 21 August 2000, pp. 3-4; rollo, pp. 354-355.

10Sandiganbayan Resolution issued on 3 April 2001, p. 2; rollo, p. 358.

11 Rollo, pp. 63, 65-67.

12Justice Brion's modified draft Decision, p. 2.

13Comment cum Opposition, filed on 18 July 2008, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 66, pp. 126-136; Rejoinder, filed on 14 September 2009, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 67, pp. 206-210; Comment cum Opposition, filed on 14 September 2009, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 67, pp. 212-213; Memorandum, filed on 8 February 2010, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 68, pp. 62-73.

14Offer of Evidence filed on 14 May 2008, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 65, pp. 539-545; Supplemental Offer of Evidence filed on 4 September 2008, SB records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 66, pp. 242-243.

15Underscoring in the original.

16Underscoring in the original; boldfacing supplied.

17SB Records (Civil Case No. 0009), Volume 18, pp. 6646-6649. (Boldfacing supplied)

182 V. Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines 352-353 (1973).

19See Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 166859, 169203 & 180702, 12 April 2011; Raquel-Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 174986, 175071 & 181415, 7 July 2009, 592 SCRA 169; Grefalde v. Sandiganbayan, 401 Phil. 553 (2000).

20Active Wood Products, Co. Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 260 Phil. 825 (1990). Section 5, Rule 9 of the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court reads:

SEC. 5. Consolidation of cases. The Court may order the consolidation of cases involving common questions of law or fact. The Chief Justice shall assign the consolidated cases to the Member-in-Charge to whom the case having the lower or lowest docket number has been raffled, subject to equalization of cases load by raffle. The Judicial Records Office shall see to it that (a) the rollos of the consolidated cases are joined together to prevent the loss, misplacement or detachment of any of them; and (b) the cover of each rollo indicates the G.R. or UDK number of the case with which the former is consolidated.

The Member-in-Charge who finds after study that the cases do not involve common questions of law or of fact may request the Court to have the case or cases returned to the original Member-in-Charge.

The Sandiganbayan has a similar rule regarding the consolidation of cases. Section 2, Rule XII of the Revised Internal Rules of Sandiganbayan (A.M. No. 02-6-07-SB dated 28 August 2002) provides:

SEC. 2. Consolidation of Cases.- Cases arising from the same incident or series of incidents, or involving common questions of fact and law, may be consolidated in the Division to which the case bearing the lowest docket number is raffled.

(a) Before Cases Are Raffled - Should the propriety of consolidation appear upon the filing of the cases concerned as determined by the Raffle Committee, all such cases shall be consolidated and considered as one case for purposes of the raffle and inventory of pending cases assigned to each of the Divisions.

(b) After Cases Are Raffled - Should the propriety of such consolidation become apparent only after the cases are raffled, consolidation may be effected upon written motion of a litigant concerned filed with the Division taking cognizance of the case to be consolidated. If the motion is granted, consolidation shall be made to the Division in which the case with the lowest docket number is assigned. The Division to which the cases are consolidated shall transfer to the Division from which the consolidated cases came, an equivalent number of cases of approximately the same age, nature and stage in the proceedings, with proper notice to the parties in said cases.

21It is even held in American jurisprudence that [w]here two or more actions are consolidated, a deposition taken in one of them prior to the consolidation is admissible on the trial of the consolidated action. (1 C.J.S. 1375)

22Philippine National Bank v. Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc., G.R. No. 183211, 5 June 2009, 588 SCRA 798; Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 451 Phil. 497 (2003).

23G.R. No. 172393, 20 October 2010, 634 SCRA 107.

24G.R. Nos. 182382-83, 24 February 2010, 613 SCRA 528.

25Id. at 535-536.

26Now Rule 23 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

27Justice Brion's modified draft Decision, p. 47.

28G.R. Nos. 138701-02, 17 October 2006, 504 SCRA 618, 634.

29Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, 240 Phil. 561 (1987).

30357 Phil. 452 (1998).

31Id. at 478-479.

32Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, p. 10; rollo, p. 89.

33Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, p. 8; rollo, p. 87.

34Sec. 4. [Rule 23] Use of depositions. At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions:

x x x

35Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 8-9; rollo, pp. 87-88.

36 A F F I D A V I T

I, MAURICE V. BANE, of legal age married, a British [words missing from photocopy], and with business address at Eastern Telecommunications [missing words] Inc., Telecoms Plaza, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati, Manila, after being duly sworn, do hereby depose and say,

1. I am presently the Senior Adviser of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), a Philippine corporation duly registered and authorized to engage in the business of telecommunications in the Philippines since 1974;

2. Until my retirement, I served as the representative of Cable and Wireless, Ltd., (C&W) a British company that presently owns 40% of the outstanding capital stocks of ETPI, C&W, through its wholly owned subsidiary, Eastern Extension Australasia and China Telephone Co., (EEATC), was formerly the sole owner and operator of the franchise that is now owned and held by ETPI. The company has been operating in the Philippines since 1880 initially under a royal decree from Spain. Following the Pacific War in 1945, the franchise was renewed in 1952 by the Philippine Government under then President Elpidio Quirino;

3. In the late 60's the possibility of establishing earth satellite stations in the Philippines arose as a result of heavy pressure from the U.S. Military who were to be its major users. Many companies and consortiums, including EEATC bidded for the contract. Then President Marcos finally awarded the contract together with the franchise to the Philippines Overseas Telecommunications Corp. (POTC) which at that time was relatively unknown in the international communications industry. The prime movers of POTC were Messrs. Potenciano Ilusorio, Honorio Poblador, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. and Roberto S. Benedicto, who were all known Marcos associates. This group became very much a part of the Philippines telecommunications scene.

4. EEATC forged a partnership with POTC for the establishment of a tropospheric

scatter system communications with Taiwan. A franchise, Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. was purchased and all government approvals were obtained by Messrs. Nieto and Ilusorio. The system was installed and during its inauguration, the principal guests were President and Mrs. Marcos, showing perhaps the political influence of Nieto and Ilusorio.

5. When President Marcos declared Martial Law in September 1972, it was clear that his grip on the country was virtually complete. C&W was fully aware of its uneasy tenure in the Philippines. In March 1973, then Secretary of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile called us to a conference at Camp Crame. I attended the said meeting together with the representatives of RCA and Globe Mackay. Secretary Enrile firmly told us that we had until July, 1974 to organize ourselves into 60/40 corporations with Filipino majority ownership and, if we did not comply, the Government would take the necessary action.

6. I pointed out that EEATC was not covered by the Laurel-Langley Act since we were a British corporation with a fully constitutional franchise. Secretary Enrile said that if we did not comply with his directive, there would be no more EEATC;

7. While we might have legal and valid grounds to contest the directive, under the prevailing martial law restrictions we had little recourse but to comply. After considering all economic and political factors, it was felt that some form of partnership with the POTC group would be the most advantageous option;

8. Prior to the above, discussions had been held with Ilusorio and Poblador, who then appeared in charge of POTC discussions were generally unsatisfactory since it was quite hard to pin Ilusorio down and we gained the impression that they wanted us to give them their participation in EEATC with minimal monetary consideration in return for political protection;

9. In approximately April/May 1973, rapid changes took place in POTC. Ilusorio and Poblador appeared to have lost their control in POTC and Nieto emerged as the controlling figure. We learned much later that this was upon the instructions of President Marcos. Thus, discussions concerning EEATC were continued with Nieto;

10. The time factor was important with July 1974 over the horizon and it was agreed to call a meeting with the accounting group of SyCip, Gorres and Velayo as intermediary. At the said meeting, we found that Atty. Jose Africa was the main representative of Nieto/POTC. He had previously not seemed a major figure in the group although he had attended several board meetings of Oceanic Wireless. Africa quickly spelt out the rules that they were interested in the proposition and that we were to deal only with the DAN group (composed of Roberto Benedicto, Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr.). We were informed that this was at the express wish of President Marcos who had appointed their group to control the telecommunications interests;

11. Negotiations were thereafter commenced with Mr. Eduardo M. Villanueva of SGV as intermediary, David West and W. H. Davies were the major C&W participants. We also requested Atty. Luciano Salazar Law Office to represent us on legal matters;

12. The figure eventually negotiated for the assets (net book value only and no good will) was Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) on the basis of which the BAN group will put up Six Million Pesos (P6,000,000.00). Further meetings took place to finalize the details but Africa later informed us that they could not raise the required amount. As a compromise, he suggested that the new corporation raise a bank loan from which C&W could be paid. While we were not happy with this arrangement, we resigned ourselves to the fact that we would have to accede. It was agreed that stockholders' contribution would be Five Million Pesos (P5,000,000.00) plus a bank loan of Seven Million Pesos (P7,000,000.00) to cover asset payment and working capital. Africa then advised that they could only raise One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00) and C&W could loan them Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). Again, we were unhappy but again we complied;

13. All the necessary documents, articles, by-laws and stockholders agreements were drawn up by the Salazar Law Office. Of particular delicacy was the issue of franchise. It was decided that the old franchise should be retained in all detail but this was to be transferred to a new company to be called Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. Atty. Salazar drafted the Presidential Decree for the transfer of the franchise. The draft was personally delivered to Nieto who committed to secure President Marcos' approval and signature. True enough, Marcos signed the P.D. Drafted by Atty. Salazar in its entirety, without any revision or amendment. This was convincing evidence of the political power and influence of the BAN group;

14. After complying with all the registration requirements and other government regulations, ETPI commenced to fully operate as a telecommunications company under its new franchise in August 1974;

15. I am executing this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing facts in order to elucidate on the events and circumstances that led to the transfer of the assets and franchise of EEATC in favor of ETPI and the emergence of BAN group thereat.

Affiant further sayeth naught.

09 January 1991, Makati, Metro Manila.

(signed)

MAURICE V. BANE

Affiant

37Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 16-17; rollo, pp. 95-96.

38Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 19-20; rollo, pp. 98-99.

39Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 20-21; rollo, pp. 99-100.

40Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 23-25; rollo, pp. 102-104.

41Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 26-31, 33, 35; rollo, pp. 105-110, 112, 114.

42Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 37-41; rollo, pp. 116-120.

43Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 47-50; rollo, pp. 126-129.

44AUTHORIZING THE EASTERN EXTENSION AUSTRALASIA AND CHINA TELEGRAPH COMPANY, LIMITED TO TRANSFER THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THAT COMPANY UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 808, AS AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5002, TO THE EASTERN TELECOMMUNICATIONS PHILIPPINES, INC.

45Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 56-65; rollo, pp. 135-144.

46Transcript of the notes on the Deposition of Maurice V. Bane, pp. 76-78; rollo, pp. 155-157.

47515 Phil. 1 (2006).

48Id. at 46.

49G.R. No. 113420, 7 March 1997, 269 SCRA 316.

50Id. at 334.