[G.R. No. 136506.
RP vs. DESIERTO
SECOND DIVISION
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 136506 (Republic
of the
Before us are the two (2) Manifestations[1] filed by respondents Jose C. Conception and Maria Clara L. Lobregat,[2] respectively, seeking to set aside the Decision[3] of the Court promulgated on August 23, 2001 and a motion[4] filed by respondent Eduardo Cojuangco for the reconsideration of the said decision.
The antecedents are as follows:
Several complaints for misuse of the coconut levy funds were
filed against respondent Eduardo Cojuangco and several others by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) with the Department of Justice (DOJ).[5]
The complaints were investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG), Special Panel of Prosecutors. During the submission of the
parties' respective pleadings, the law firm of Abello Concepcion Regala &
Cruz (ACCRA) entered its appearance as counsel of Jose C. Concepcion.[6] In subsequent pleadings,
On
The Order of Tablada was reviewed by GIO Emora C. Pagunuran who recommended the approval thereof by the Ombudsman; the latter approved the recommendation and dismissed the complaint.
The OSG filed its motion for the reconsideration of the Order but the Office of the Ombudsman denied the same.[14] Copies of said order were transmitted to the eight (8) respondents, including Concepcion and Lobregat, through Atty. Estelito Mendoza.[15]
On
On
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed
Review and Recommendation dated
The Ombudsman is hereby directed to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the case OMB-0-90-2808.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[18]
On September 21, 2001, respondent Concepcion filed his Manifestation,[19] through ACCRA, his counsel of record, alleging inter alia, that he only learned through the newspapers that this Court had rendered judgment ordering the Office of the Ombudsman to continue its investigation of the charge against him and the other alleged cronies which included respondent Concepcion and that when he verified the news from this Court, it was only then that he knew of the petition in the Court and its decision. He avers that he was not accorded the right to file his Comment on the petition; hence, he was denied his right to due process. He asserts that the decision of the Court is null and void as to him.
On the same day,
On September 24, 2001, respondent Lobregat, through her counsel, filed her Manifestation[21] basically alleging the same allegations as respondent Concepcion: that she was not aware of the present petition; that she was never represented by Atty. Estelito Mendoza; that the OSG knew that she had been represented by ACCRA in all other related cases filed against her, thus, she alleges, the OSG misled this Court when it averred that she may be served with the processes through Atty. Estelito Mendoza. She asserts that the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint against her had become final and executory.
In its Comment[22] on the Manifestations of respondents Concepcion and Lobregat, the OSG admitted that copies of its petition or its subsequent pleadings on respondents Lobregat and Concepcion were only served through Atty. Estelito Mendoza and not through their counsel, the ACCRA Law Office because it relied solely on what was stated in the order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman directing that the respondent be sent copies of said Order through Atty. Estelito Mendoza, and that it committed an honest mistake; and offered its apologies to the Court and to the two (2) respondents, thus:
The above data appearing on the petition is more a product of an honest lapse than an attempt to misrepresent.
Petitioner respectfully invites the attention of the Honorable Court to Annex B of its petition (which is the questioned Order dated September 25, 1998 of the Ombudsman denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of its Memorandum dated August 6, 1998 dismissing petitioner's complaint in OMB-0-90-2808).
As can be gleaned from page 4 of the said order, several respondents were grouped together c/o Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza. Obviously, the same was copied and used in indicating the place where the same respondents may be served which, admittedly, is not correct.
Petitioner begs the indulgence of the Honorable Court for such honest mistake and offers its apologies to private respondents Lobregat and Concepcion.[23]
After a careful examination of the records, we note that the OSG as representative of petitioner Republic of the Philippines, had been informed from the very beginning of the controversy that respondents Lobregat and Concepcion were represented by their counsel, the ACCRA Law Office and yet served copies of its petition in this Court on the respondents, through Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
Irrefragably then, the respondents Concepcion and Lobregat were deprived
of their right to file their comments on the petition before this Court
rendered its decision. The case was not yet ripe for decision when this Court
rendered its decision on its erroneous belief that the counsel of the
respondents Concepcion and Lobregat was Atty. Estelito Mendoza as shown by the
petition of the OSG.
WHEREFORE, the
decision of the Court dated
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo,
pp. 302 and 380, respectively.
[2] Died
on
[3] Rollo,
p. 284; Penned by Associate Justice Sabino R. De Leon, Jr., with Associate
Justices Josue N. Bellosillo (Chairman), Vicente V. Mendoza, Leonardo A.
Quisumbing and Arturo B Buena
concurring.
[4]
[5]
Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Presidential
Commission on Good Government, 190 SCRA 226(1990).
[6]
Records,
p. 0187 (Folder 1).
[7]
[8]
[9]
Supra.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Records,
pp. 0330-0333 (Folder 1).
[12]
[13]
[14]
Rollo,
p. 42.
[15]
Records,
p. 0369 (Folder 1).
[16]
Rollo,
p. 2.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]