Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 205722 2015-08-19	REPUBLIC v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On November 22, 1990, the PCGG and Benedicto filed a Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement,[19] which was opposed by the Solicitor General and the plaintiff-intervenors, ABS-CBN,[20] CBNI,[21] and MBS,[22] on the ground that the same was against the interest of the Filipinos.[23] In a Resolution[24] promulgated on October 2, 1992, the SB approved the Compromise Agreement and rendered judgment in accordance with its terms. On September 10, 1993, this Court in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan[25] upheld the validity of the Compromise Agreement and ordered the parties to strictly comply with the terms thereof.
	GR No. 171673 2011-05-30	BANAHAW BROADCASTING CORPORATION v. CAYETANO PACANA III LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On November 3, 1990, Benedicto and the Republic executed a Compromise Agreement whereby Benedicto, in exchange for immunity from civil and criminal actions, "ceded to the government certain pieces of property listed in Annex A of the agreement and assigned or transferred whatever rights he may have, if any, to the government over all corporate assets listed in Annex B of the agreement."[21] BBC is one of the properties listed in Annex B.[22] Annex A, on the other hand, includes the following entry: CESSION TO THE GOVERNMENT:
	GR No. 180564 2010-06-22	JESUS P. DISINI v. SANDIGANBAYAN ABAD, J.
But, first, the estoppel that petitioner Disini invokes does not have the effect, if recognized, of denying the state its right to recover whatever ill-gotten wealth Herminio may have acquired under the Marcos regime. The action against Herminio can continue, hampered only by the exclusion of Disini's testimony. And there are other ways of proving the existence of ill-gotten wealth. Second, although the government cannot be barred by estoppel based on unauthorized acts of public officers,[17] such principle cannot apply to this case since, as already pointed out, respondent PCGG acted within its authority when it provided Disini with a guarantee against having to testify in other cases.
	GR Nos. 170270 & 179411 2009-04-02	NEWSOUNDS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC. v. CEASAR G. DY TINGA, J.
Petitioners persuasively argue that this consistent recognition by the local government of Cauayan of the commercial character of the property constitutes estoppel against respondents from denying that fact before the courts. The lower courts had ruled that "the government of Cauayan City is not bound by estoppel," but petitioners point out our holding in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[72] where it was clarified that "this concept is understood to refer to acts and mistakes of its officials especially those which are irregular."[73] Indeed, despite the general rule that the State cannot be put in estoppel by the mistake or errors of its officials or agents, we have also recognized, thus:Estoppels against the public are little favored. They should not be invoked except in a rare and unusual circumstances, and may not be invoked where they would operate to defeat the effective operation of a policy adopted to protect the public. They must be applied with circumspection and should be applied only in those special cases where the interests of justice clearly require it. Nevertheless, the government must not be allowed to deal dishonorably or capriciously with its citizens, and must not play an ignoble part or do a shabby thing; and subject to limitations . . ., the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked against public authorities as well as against private individuals.[74]
	GR No. 157592 2008-10-17	PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN NACHURA, J.
On November 3, 1990, the Republic through the PCGG, and principal defendant Benedicto entered into a Compromise Agreement[8] which was approved by the Sandiganbayan on October 2, 1992. Later, the PCGG, represented by then Chairman David M. Castro, sought the annulment of the Compromise Agreement, but this Court, in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[9] upheld its validity and ordered the parties to strictly comply with the terms thereof.
	GR NO. 159876 2007-06-26	DINO A. CRUCILLO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN GARCIA, J.
Third, in Republic v. Benedicto,[26] involving, among other things, the subject PAFICO loan, the Court declared as valid the RP-Benedicto Compromise Agreement executed on November 3, 1990 and which the Sandiganbayan approved in its Civil Case No. 0034. Pursuant thereto, Benedicto and his group-controlled corporations assigned or transferred all their rights and interests over PAFICO, among other corporate assets.[27] As trade off, the RP/PCGG, inter alia, extended absolute immunity to Benedicto, members of his family, and officers/employees of the listed corporations, such that there would be no criminal investigation or prosecution for acts or omissions prior to February 25, 1986 that may be alleged to have violated penal laws including R.A. No. 3019, in relation to the acquisition of the assets under the agreement.
	GR NO. 141796 2005-06-15	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
With the imprimatur of no less than the former President Fidel V. Ramos and the approval of the Sandiganbayan, the Compromise Agreement must be accorded utmost respect. Such amicable settlement is not only allowed but even encouraged. Thus, in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,[26] we held: "It is advocated by the PCGG that respondent Benedicto retaining a portion of the assets is anathema to, and incongruous with, the zero-retention policy of the government in the pursuit for the recovery of all ill-gotten wealth pursuant to Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1. While full recovery is ideal, the PCGG is not precluded from entering into a Compromise Agreement which entails reciprocal concessions if only to expedite recovery so that the remaining 'funds, assets and other properties may be used to hasten national economic recovery' (3rd WHEREAS clause, Executive Order No. 14-A). To be sure, the so-called zero retention mentioned in Section 2(a) of Executive Order No. 1 had been modified to read:
	GR NO. 109976 2005-04-26	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL OIL COMPANY v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
PNB also asserts that the CTA had no jurisdiction to set aside a compromise agreement entered into in good faith. It relies on the decision of this Court in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[85] that a compromise agreement cannot be set aside merely because it is too one-sided. A compromise agreement should be respected by the courts as the res judicata between the parties thereto.
	GR No. 111544 2004-07-06	VICENTE T. UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
…. (T)he Sandiganbayan correctly denied jurisdiction over the proposed complaint-in-intervention. The original and exclusive jurisdiction given to the Sandiganbayan over PCGG cases pertains to (a) cases filed by the PCGG, pursuant to the exercise of its power under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2 and 14, as amended by the Office of the President, and Article XVIII, Section 26 of the Constitution, i.e., where the principal cause of action is the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, as well as all incidents arising from, incidental to or related to such cases and (b) cases filed by those who wish to question or challenge the commission's acts or orders in such cases. What is more, unlike the cases cited above and invoked by petitioner, there is no longer any pending sequestration in the case at bar. A year prior to the transactions assailed in this case, six out of the seven original PIEDRAS stockholders (all nominees of Mr. Benedicto) have assigned their respective shareholdings to the Philippine Government, in exchange for immunity.[12] Petitioner himself affirmed this fact and even stated that the compromise agreement was approved by the Sandiganbayan and later affirmed by this Court.[13] As correctly pointed out by respondent PCGG, by the voluntary surrender of the corporation to the Philippine Government and the confirmation of the compromise agreement, the issue of ownership was no longer in question.