are being made which are different from
Virata filed a BOP alleging that the
these allegations are vague and not
averred with sufficient definiteness to
enable him to effectively prepare his
responsive pleadings. Sandiganbayan
partially granted the motion. Only with
regard to par.17 and 18 was the republic
required to file a bill of particulars. As to
the others, Sandiganbayan declared
them to be clear and specific enough to
allow Virata to file an intelligent
responsive pleading.
OSG submitted the bill of
particulars relating to par17 and 18.
Virata filed a motion to strike out this bill
of particular and to defer the filing of his
answer. It is alleged that the bill of
particulars aver for the first time new
actionable wrongs allegedly committed
by him in various official capacities and
that the allegations do not indicate that
he was a dummy, nominee or agent
(which was the allegation in the
complaint) but rather a government
officer acting in his own name.
Meanwhile, Virata filed a petition
for certiorari with the SC with regard to
the denial of his bill of particulars with
regard to par.14 and sections b,g and
m. SC granted the petition. OSG filed a
manifestation that since PCGG is the
investigating body with the complete
records of the case, it is in a better
position to supply the bill of particulars.
Thus, PCGG submitted a bill of
particulars (no.2) in relation to par.14
and subparagraphs b,g and m.
Virata filed a comment with a
motion to dismiss. According to him, bill
of particulars no.2 is merely a rehash of
the assertions made in the last
amended complaint hence, it is not the
bill of particulars required by the court.
As to the 1st bill of particulars, it
allegedly shows that new imputations
charge in the complaint.
Sandiganbayan found the bill of
particulars to be sufficient, hence, this
recourse to the SC.
ISSUE: Whether the bill of particulars
should be admitted or not? NO!
HELD: The rule is that a complaint must
contain the ultimate facts constituting
plaintiff's cause of action. A cause of
action has the following elements: (1) a
right in favor of the plaintiff; (2) an
obligation on the part of the named
defendant to respect or not to violate
such right; and (3) an act or omission on
the part of such defendant violating the
plaintiffs right. As long as the complaint
contains these three elements, a cause
of action exists. Even though the
allegations are vague, dismissal is not
the proper remedy. Thus, the rules of
court provide that a party may move for
more definite statement or for a bill of
particulars of any matter which is not
averred with sufficient definiteness or
particularity to enable him properly to
prepare his responsive pleading or to
prepare for trial. Such motion shall point
out the defects complained of and the
details desired. An order directing the
submission of such statement or bill is
proper where it enables the party asking
for it to intelligently prepare a responsive
pleading, or adequately to prepare for
trial.
It is the office of the bill of
particulars to inform the opposite party
and the court of the precise nature and
character of the cause of action or
defense which the pleader has
attempted to set forth and thereby to
guide his adversary in his preparations
for trial, and reasonably to protect him
against surprise at the trial. It gives
information of the specific proposition for
which the pleader contends, in respect
to any material and issuable fact in the
case, and it becomes a part of the
pleading which it supplements. It has
been held that a bill of particulars must
inform the opposite party of the nature
of the pleader's cause of action or
defense, and it must furnish the required
items of the claim with reasonable
fullness and precision. Generally, it will
be held sufficient if it fairly and
substantially gives the opposite party
the information to which he is entitled. It
should be definite and specific and not
contain general allegations and
conclusions. It should be reasonably
certain and as specific as the
circumstances will allow.
Bill of particular for Par14 (b):
Complaint alleges viratas alleged active
collaboration in reducing taxes. Yet,
there is nothing in the bill of particular
about this active collaboration. It is silent
as to what acts of Virat that establish
that he collaborated in reducing the
taxes.
Par14(g): BOP (bill of particular)
on this also failed to set forth particularly
or specifically the charges against
virata. It is full of generalizations and
indefinite statements. So many
questions about the alleged acts which
were not answered (ie. What were these
electric coops? Why were their
acquisition anomalous? Etc)
Par14(m): BOP is merely a
restatement of the charge in the
complaint. Clearly, republic failed to
amplify the charges against Virata. The
important question as to what particular
acts of Virata that constituted support
and assistance in the formation of
Erectors Holdings is left unanswered.
With regard to the 1st bill of
particular, basically SC had the same
findings. That is, BOP failed to supply
Virata with material matters which he
needs in order to file a responsive
pleading. Further, the 1st BOP contains
new matters which are not covered by
the charges in the complaint. The
complaint alleges that he was acting as
a dummy but the BOP state that he
acted in his official capacity. Therefore,
under the BOP he acted as agent of the
government whereas in the complaint
he allegedly acted as agent of his co-
defendants.
The two bills of particulars filed
by the Republic failed to properly
amplify the charges leveled against
Virata because, not only are they mere
reiteration or repetition of the allegations
set forth in the expanded Second
Amended Complaint, but, to the large
extent, they contain vague, immaterial
and generalized assertions which are
inadmissible under our procedural rules.
As a result, SC orders the
dismissal of the complaint in so far as
the charges against Virata are
concerned. This is justified under the
rules of court (failure to prosecute
plaintiff... fails to comply with these rules
or any order of the court)
Side issues: Whether PCGG can
file the BOP in behalf of the republic
(contention is that only OSG can act in
behalf of republic)? YES. Admin code
gives power to the OSG to deputize
legal officers and to call on any
dept...etc., as may be necessary to fulfil
its functions. Here, OSG called PCGG
for assistance and authorized it to file
the BOP.