Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
04 - 1
REPUBLIC vs. SANDIGANBAYAN discretion amounting to lack/excess of jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari can only be used
Petition for Certiorari to review Sandiganbayan (SB) resolution; 1990 for such purposes.
FACTS: b. SC can dismiss the case but because it is of public interest & a matter of public policy, it
• July 29, 1987 – Republic of the Philippines (RP) thru Presidential Commission on Good will still review alleged errors.
Government (PCGG) filed a complaint in Sandiganbayan against Ferdinand Marcos, et
al. for reconveyance, reversion, restitution & damages. 3. WON Palanca & company can intervene. – YES
• Sept. 3, 1987 – before case against Marcos could be set for hearing, Simplicio Palanca, a. Intervention is allowed when a party has (1) a legal interest in the matter of litigation, (2)
in his own behalf as stockholder of Bacolod Real Estate Development Corporation in the success of either parties (3) interest against both parties (4) or if it will be
(BREDCO) along w/other stockholders filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, praying adversely affected by distribution or disposition of property in custody of court or other
that they be allowed to intervene in Marcos’ case since they have a legal interest in the officers. (Rules of Court, Rule 12)
litigation & the properties for disposition in the said case. They claim that lands involved b. In 1961, BREDCO was awarded by Bacolod City a contract to undertake reclamation &
in the case are not registered in the name of any of the defendants (Marcos, et al.) but in port development of city. BREDCO tied-up with Marsteel in 1975, taking it in as a
the name of BREDCO and Marsteel Consolidated, Inc. Marsteel became involved contractor & allotting 65% of excess of all disbursement revenues for said company. In
because BREDCO stockholders transferred their shares (about 70% of subscribed 1977, BREDCO stockholders transferred 70% of BREDCO capital stocks to Marsteel
capital) to help Marsteel finance reclamation & port development project. Consolidated, Inc. (owner of Marsteel) to enable it to expand its base of negotiation for
• March 23, 1988 – petitioner (PCGG) filed Motion to Dismiss Answer in Intervention on loans needed in the projects. These stockholders will be entitled to 35% in excess of all
the ff.grounds: SB lacks jurisdiction & intervenors have no legal interest. disbursement revenues. Then in Sept. 1986, PCGG sequestered all assets, properties,
records & documents of Marsteel, MCI & BREDCO. Then, case against Marcos was
• June 6, 1988 – SB granted motion to intervene. PCGG moved for reconsideration,
filed alleging that Marcos & co-defendants amassed ill-gotten wealth among w/c are
denied.
BREDCO lots & shares of stock & prayed that such properties be reconveyed to PCGG
• PCGG filed petition in SC complaining that by granting motion to intervene, SB violated plus damages. BREDCO & MCI were never mentioned in the complaints.
a national or public policy embedded in EO No. 1, 2, 4 & related issuances because: c. Palanca, being one of the stockholders of BREDCO who transferred 70% of BREDCO
1. Intervention is a suit/counter-suit against the RP which being a sovereign state shares to MCI and is entitled to 35% of disbursement revenue excess, has a legal interest
cannot be sued w/o its consent. in the matter in litigation. His co-intervenors have the same standing too.
2. Cause of action of intervenors is not under SB jurisdiction (PD No. 1606 & EO No. d. Palanca and company will be adversely affected by the distribution & disposition of
14). It’s under regular courts or other forums since these are claims between and/or property currently in Court’s custody. The lots & stocks sequestered belong to BREDCO.
among Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos & their cronies. They can’t just stand idly & see their property disposed of w/o asserting their rights.
3. Intervenors have no legal interest in matter in litigation. e. Palanca & company have legal interest in the success of either of the parties involved,
ISSUES/RATIO: thus they can intervene. There is a possibility that the judgment in this case will reconvey
1. WON SB has jurisdiction over action for intervention. – YES their properties to PCGG thus, they have legal interest in the success of Marcos & other
a. All PCGG cases re: funds, moneys, assets, & properties acquired or misappropriated by defendants.
Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates,
dummies, agents or nominees, whether civil or criminal, & all incidents arising from, 3. WON intervention amounts to a suit against the State. – NO
incidental to or related to such cases fall under SB’s exclusive & original jurisdiction. a. An intervenor may either join plaintiff in claiming what is sought in the complaint or the
(Sec. 2, Presidential EO No. 14, cited in PCGG vs. Pena) defendant in resisting plaintiff’s claims by filing an answer in intervention. (Rules of
b. Intervention is not an independent action. It is supplemental to Marcos’ case. Since SB Court)
has jurisdiction over such case then it follows that the motion to intervene is also under b. By filing its complaint in intervention, the Government in effect waived its right to non-
its jurisdiction. suability. (Froilan vs. Pan Oriental Shipping Co.)
c. When an intervention merely resists plaintiff’s claims w/o asking for any affirmative
2. WON remedy sought (certiorari) is proper. – NO relief against any party, it cannot be a suit against the State. And in the event that the
a. It has jurisdiction over the case thus whatever error or irregularity it might have State intervenes, that is not tantamount to the State waiving its right to be sued. (Lim vs.
committed in its decision is an error of judgment correctible by appeal & not certiorari. Brownell Jr. and Kagawa)
An appeal requests for review of errors of judgment committed by a court of competent d. Palanca & company are merely uniting with the defendants in resisting claims against
jurisdiction. A writ of certiorari is used to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of PCGG & are not asking for any relief or damages against the PCGG. They merely pray
that their properties be excluded from the reconveyance of the alleged ill-gotten wealth