Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 93694 : April 24, 2012]

PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. [COCOFED], COCONUT INVESTMENT


COMPANY [CIC], COCOFED MARKETING CORPORATION [COCOMARK], MARIA CLARA L.
LOBREGAT, BIENVENIDO MARQUEZ, JOSE R. ELEAZAR, JR., DOMINGO ESPINA, JOSE GOMEZ,
CELESTINO SABATE, MANUEL DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN FIRST
DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated APRIL 24, 2012, which reads as follows:
cralaw
"G.R. No. 93694 (Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. [COCOFED], Coconut Investment Company
[CIC], COCOFED Marketing Corporation [COCOMARK], Maria Clara L. Lobregat, Bienvenido Marquez, Jose R.
Eleazar, Jr., Domingo Espina, Jose Gomez, Celestino Sabate, Manuel Del Rosario, et al. v. Honorable
Sandiganbayan First Division, Republic of the Philippines and Presidential Commission on Good Government)

RESOLUTION

This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the annulment of the March 8, 1988 Resolution,[1] June 20, 1989
Resolution[2] and June 15, 1990 Order[3] of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. (CC) 0033 entitled Republic of
the Philippines v. Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.

In the assailed March 8, 1988 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Maria
Clara L. Lobgregat, et al. of the open court Order of the Sandiganbayan denying their request to present evidence
on certain issues in their earlier Motion to Dismiss dated October 5, 1988.

In the June 20, 1989 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to Dismiss dated October 5, 1988 filed by
the defendants in CC 0033.

While in the June 15, 1990 Order, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the Board of Directors appointed by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) shall operate the Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc. (COCOFED).

The Facts

Congress enacted, in 1971, Republic Act No. (RA) 6260, otherwise known as the Coconut Investment Act,
creating the Coconut Investment Corporation (CIC) for the declared national policy of accelerating the
development of the coconut industry through the provision of adequate medium-and long-term financing for capital
investment in the industry. To finance the CIC, RA 6260 also created the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF) that was
to be funded with collections from a levy on the sale of copra. A portion of the funds would be placed at the
disposition of COCOFED, the national association of coconut producers with the largest membership as
recognized by the Philippine Coconut Administration, "for the maintenance and operation of its principal office
which shall be responsible for continuing liaison with the different sectors of the industries, the government and its
own mass base."[4]

Thereafter, in 1973, former President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. (PD) 276 creating the
Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF) which imposed an additional levy on the sale of copra. The fund
was intended to be utilized to subsidize the sale of coconut-based products at prices set by the Price Control
Council.

In 1974, President Marcos then issued PD 582 which imposed another levy on the sale of copra to fund the
Coconut Industry Development Fund purported to finance the establishment of a hybrid coconut seednut farm for
the development of early-breeding and high-yielding hybrid variety of coconut trees.

Then, in 1978, President Marcos issued PD 1468 or the Revised Coconut Industry Code which created the
Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) and empowered it to impose the CCSF levy on the sale of copra and to be
utilized for, among others, "[financing] the developmental and operating expenses of the Philippine Coconut
Producers Federation including projects such as scholarships for the benefit of deserving children of the coconut
farmers."[5]

After the EDSA Revolution, on February 28, 1986, former President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order No.
1 creating the PCGG with the singular task of recovering ill-gotten wealth accumulated by President Marcos
whether directly or indirectly. Through Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7, 1986, President Aquino vested
exclusive jurisdiction over ill-gotten wealth cases with the Sandiganbayan.

Thus, on July 8, 1986, the PCGG issued sequestration orders over the shares of stocks of COCOFED, while issuing
freeze orders over its bank accounts. Freeze orders were also issued against the bank accounts of COCOFED
President Maria Clara Lobregat, and COCOFED Directors Inaki Mendezona and Eladio Chatto.

Thereafter, on July 31, 1987, PCGG instituted an action for reconveyance before the Sandiganbayan, docketed as
CC 0033, against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and several other individuals, among them, Ma. Clara Lobregat
(Lobregat), and Danilo Ursua (Ursua), who, at one time or another, occupied top management positions in either
the COCOFED or the PCA, or both. The case revolved around the provisional take-over by the PCGG of
COCOFED and its assets, and the sequestration of shares of stock in United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB)
purportedly issued to and/or owned by over a million coconut farmers, Cojuangco, the six (6) Coconut Industry
Investment Fund (CIIF) corporations[6] and the fourteen (14) CIIF holding companies[7] (hereafter collectively
called "CIIF companies"). These CIIF companies are so called for having been organized and/or acquired as UCPB
subsidiaries with the use of the CIIF levy.

The original complaint was later amended and entitled Amended Complaint [Expanded per Court-approved
Plaintiff's Manifestation/Motion dated December 8, 1987] dated October 2, 1987.

Then, Lobregat, et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss dated October 5, 1988[8] on the following grounds:

The Court has not acquired jusrisdiction over the person of the movants and the subject matter of the action.

Plaintiff has no cause of action because the different investments acquired and/or organized with part of the
proceeds of the so-called coconut levy were all made pursuant to law and are owned, in law and in fact, by the
coconut farmers.

This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit insofar as the COCOFED, UCPB, UNICOM,
COCOMARK, COCOLIFE, CIC and CIIF investments are sought to be forfeited for the reason that the coconut
farmers who are the lawful owners of those investments, are not included as party defendants.

The PCGG Charter constitutes discriminatory legislation violative of the equal protection clause of the 1987
Constitution.

The PCGG Charter is unconstitutional for being a bill of attainder. It is likewise void for being an ex-post facto
law.
Movants were denied due process of law in that no preliminary investigation was conducted by the authorized
government agency. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the heels of the motion, Lobregat, et al. then filed a Motion for Leave to Present Evidence on their Motion to
Dismiss. The Sandiganbayan denied this Motion for Leave in open court during the hearing on January 27, 1989.
Lobregat, et al. moved for a reconsideration of the open court denial of their motion for leave to present evidence.
Thus, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed Resolution dated March 6, 1989[9] and promulgated on March 8,
1989, denying the motion for reconsideration on the ground that no factual issue was raised in the Motion to
Dismiss that would require the presentation of evidence.

On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan issued the second assailed Resolution dated June 20, 1989[10] denying
Lobregat, et al.'s Motion to Dismiss.

Concurrently, on June 7, 1990, the PCGG issued a memorandum stating that, pursuant to the Decision dated
October 29, 1989[11] promulgated by the Court in G.R. No. 75713 entitled Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc., (COCOFED) v. Presidential Commission on Good Government[12] (COCOFED v. PCGG), it
was appointing the Executive Committee, Directors of the National Board and Regional Directors of COCOFED.
This prompted COCOFED to query the Sandiganbayan as to the validity of such memorandum and ask for a
temporary restraining order to stop the PCGG from implementing the memorandum. For ease of reference, G.R.
No. 75713, a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, sought to nullify the sequestration and other orders
issued by the PCGG against COCOFED and other enterprises, culminated in the dismissal of said petition.
However, in the assailed Order dated June 15, 1990, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the PCGG-designated board of
directors shall operate COCOFED, stating:

Upon verbal inquiry by Atty. Manuel Laserna, Jr. as to which board should be recognized in the interim until a
resolution of the matter pending before this Court, the Court is of the view and so hold that those designated by the
PCGG as of June 11, 1983 (sic), in the afternoon, will be the operating board of the COCOFED. As earlier stated,
this recognition by this Court is without prejudice to any other act or acts which the parties might wish to refer to
this Court and which this Court will respond to at the interim.

Aggrieved, COCOFED and others who claimed to have been prejudiced by the designation of the board of
directors issued by the PCGG interposed the instant petition to challenge said PCGG appointments.

The PCGG discovered later that the sequestered properties involved in the case were registered in the name of the
corporate-owners and not in the name of the individual defendants; thus, there was a need to further amend the
complaint pursuant to Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Under this constitutional provision, failure to
include corporate defendants which own the sequestered properties would result in the automatic lifting of the writs
of sequestration. Thus, 78 corporate defendants were included in the newly amended complaint entitled Third
Amended Complaint [Expanded per Court-approved Plaintiff's Manifestation/Motion dated December 8, 1987]
dated August 19, 1991. COCOFED was then included as a party defendant.

In 1995, during the pendency of the instant petition, the Republic moved for the subdivision of CC 0033 into
separate trials on the various sequestered assets, attaching the corresponding amended complaints. On March 24,
1999, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution granting the Republic's motion and subdividing CC 0033 into eight
(8) separate complaints on the various subject matters, as follows:

Subdivided Complaint
Subject Matter

1.
Civil Case No. 0033-A
Anomalous Purchase and Use of First United Bank (now United Coconut Planters Bank)

2.
Civil Case No. 0033-B
Creation of Companies Out of Coco Levy Funds

3.
Civil Case No. 0033-C
Creation and Operation of Bugsuk Project and Award of P998 Million Damages to Agricultural Investors, Inc.

4.
Civil Case No. 0033-D
Disadvantageous Purchases and Settlement of the Accounts of Oil Mills Out of Coco Levy Funds

5.
Civil Case No. 0033-E
Unlawful Disbursement and Dissipation of Coco Levy Funds

6.
Civil Case No. 0033-F
Acquisition of SMC shares of stock

7.
Civil Case No. 0033-G
Acquisition of Pepsi-Cola

8.
Civil Case No. 0033-H Behest Loans and Contracts[13]
(Emphasis supplied.)

In the Third Amended Complaint (Subdivided) dated February 28, 1995 filed in CC 0033-B, it is alleged that:

15. Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., taking undue advantage of his association, influence, connection and
acting in unlawful concert with Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and the individual
defendants, embarked upon devices, schemes and stratagems, including the use of defendant corporations as fronts,
to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people, such as when he —

Created and/or funded with the use of coconut levy funds, various corporations, such as the Philippine Coconut
Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), Coconut Investment Company (CIC), COCOFED Marketing Corporation
(COCOMARK) and United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation (COCOLIFE), with the active
collaboration and participation of Defendants Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara Lobregat, Rolando dela Cuesta, Jose
R. Eleazar, Jr., Jose Reynaldo Morente, Eladio Chatto, Domingo Espina, Anastacio Emano, Sr., Bienvenido
Marquez, Jose Gomez, Inaki Mendezona, Manuel del Rosario, Sulpicio Granada and Jose Martinez, Jr., Emmanuel
Almeda, Danilo Ursua, Hermenigildo Zayco and Celestino Zabate, most of whom compromised the interlocking
officers and directors of said companies; dissipated, misused and/or misappropriated a substantial part of said coco
levy funds and allowances, bonuses and other emoluments, for their own personal benefits, including huge cash
advances in millions of pesos which, to date remain unliquidated and unaccounted for to the prejudice of plaintiff
and the Filipino people, finally gained ownership and control of the United Coconut Planters Bank by misusing the
names and/or identities of the so-called "more than one million coconut farmers." (Emphasis supplied.)

In response, Lobregat, et al. filed an Ex Abundanti Cautela Answer with Compulsory Counterclaims to the Third
Amended Complaint [Re: Creation of Companies out of Coco Levy Funds] dated June 7, 1999.

To date, CC 0033-B remains pending with the Sandiganbayan.

The Issues

GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION

The series of acts and omissions of respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0033 culminating in
the Order of 15 June 1990 are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
The refusal of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan Court to receive petitioners' evidence is a whimsical and
capricious evasion of a positive duty under the law and particularly enjoined in this Honorable Court's Decision in
G.R. No. 75713.

The inaction of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan on the Class Action Omnibus Motion serves to perpetuate
the unlawful acts of respondent PCGG.

The failure of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan to afford Petitioners speedy justice is tainted with such
unfairness and arbitrariness as to amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.[14]
The Court's Ruling

This petition must be dismissed.

Superseding events have rendered


the instant case moot and academic

In Mendoza v. Villas,[15] the Court explained the concept of mootness, citing Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners: [16]

In Gunsi, Sr. v. Commissioners, The Commission on Elections, the Court defined a moot and academic case as
follows:

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events,
so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such case, or
dismiss it on ground of mootness.

Sec. 8, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court specifically provides for the effect of the amendment of pleadings, to wit:

Section 8. Effect of amended pleadings. — An amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. However,
admissions in superseded pleadings may be received in evidence against the pleader, and claims or defenses
alleged therein not incorporated in the amended pleading shall be deemed waived.

Thus, the Court considered the issue of whether an original complaint should have been dismissed for having
become moot with the admission of an amended complaint in Lu v. Lu Ym, Sr.[17] The Court ruled in this wise:
With the issue of admission of the amended complaint resolved, the question of whether or not the original
complaint should have been dismissed was mooted. Section 8, Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Court specifically provides
that an amended pleading supersedes the pleading that it amends. In this case, the original complaint was deemed
withdrawn from the records upon the admission of the amended complaint. This conclusion becomes even more
pronounced in that the RTC already rendered a decision on the merits of the said amended complaint, not to
mention the Lu Ym father and sons' concurrence in the mootness of the issue in the instant petition. (Emphasis
supplied.)

Evidently, with the admission of the subdivided complaints in the instant case, the original complaint in CC 0033 is
deemed withdrawn from the records, such that CC 0033 no longer exists. Correlatively, the issues pending in CC
0033 must be likewise considered moot and academic.

In particular, the issues raised in the instant case relating to the presentation of evidence were already raised in
Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v. Republic of the Philippines:[18]

COCOFED et al., in G.R. Nos. 177857-58, impute reversible error on the Sandiganbayan for (a) assuming
jurisdiction over CC Nos. 0033-A and 0033-F despite the Republic's failure to establish below the jurisdictional
facts, i.e., that the sequestered assets sought to be recovered are ill-gotten in the context of E.O. Nos. 1, 2, 14 and
14-A; (b) declaring certain provisions of coco levy issuances unconstitutional; and (c) denying the petitioners' plea
to prove that the sequestered assets belong to coconut farmers. Specifically, petitioners aver:

xxxx

III. In rendering the assailed PSJs and thereafter refusing to proceed to trial on the merits, on the mere say-so of the
respondent Republic, the Sandiganbayan committed gross and irreversible error, gravely abused its judicial
discretion and flagrantly exceeded its jurisdiction as it effectively sanctioned the taking of COCOFED, et al.'s
property by the respondent Republic without due process of law and through retroactive application of the
declaration of unconstitutionality of the coconut levy laws, an act that is not only illegal and violative of the settled
Operative Fact Doctrine but, more importantly, inequitable to the coconut farmers whose only possible mistake,
offense or misfortune was to follow the law.

A.

1. In the course of the almost twenty (20) years that the ill-gotten wealth cases were pending, COCOFED, et al.
repeatedly asked to be allowed to present evidence to prove that the true, actual and beneficial owners of the
sequestered assets are the coconut farmers and not Cojuangco, an alleged "crony" of former President Marcos. The
Sandiganbayan grievously erred and clearly abused its judicial discretion when it repeatedly and continuously
denied COCOFED, et al. the opportunity to present their evidence to disprove the baseless allegations of the Ill-
Gotten Wealth Cases that the sequestered assets constitute ill-gotten wealth of Cojuangco and of former President
Marcos, an error that undeniably and illegally deprived COCOFED, et al of their constitutional right to be heard.

xxxx

IV. The voluminous records of these ill-gotten wealth cases readily reveal the various dilatory tactics respondent
Republic resorted to x x x. As a result, despite the lapse of almost twenty (20) years of litigation, the respondent
Republic has not been required to, and has not even attempted to prove, the bases of its perjurious claim that the
sequestered assets constitute ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos and his crony, Cojuangco. In tolerating
respondent Republic's antics for almost twenty (20) years x x x, the Sandiganbayan so glaringly departed from
procedure and thereby flagrantly violated COCOFED, et al.'s right to speedy trial. (Emphasis supplied.)
It bears noting that the Court has already rendered a Decision in Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. v.
Republic of the Philippines, albeit not yet final and executory. In fine, the Court has already passed upon the same
issues raised in the instant petition. There is no need to reexamine and dispose of them in this recourse.

To reiterate, there is no practical value in ruling on the issues raised in the case by virtue of the withdrawal of the
original complaint and the non-existence of CC 0033. The instant case must, therefore, be considered moot and
academic. cralaw

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.

Вам также может понравиться