Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 169677 2013-02-18	METROPOLITAN BANK v. EDILBERTO G. SANDOVAL BERSAMIN, J.
Although the Republic has not imputed any responsibility to Asian Bank for the illegal accumulation of wealth by the original defendants, or has not averred that Asian Bank was a business associate, dummy, nominee, or agent of the Marcoses, the allegation in its amended complaint in Civil Case No. 0004 that Asian Bank acted with bad faith for ignoring the sequestration of the properties as ill-gotten wealth has made the cause of action against Asian Bank incidental or necessarily connected to the cause of action against the original defendants. Consequently, the Sandiganbayan has original exclusive jurisdiction over the claim against Asian Bank, for the Court has ruled in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan,[34] that "the Sandiganbayan has original and exclusive jurisdiction not only over principal causes of action involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth, but also over all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases." The Court made a similar pronouncement sustaining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan in Republic of the Philippines (PCGG) v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), [35] to wit: We cannot possibly sustain such a puerile stand. Peña itself already dealt with the matter when it stated that under Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14, all cases of the Commission regarding alleged ill-gotten properties of former President Marcos and his relatives, subordinates, cronies, nominees and so forth, whether civil or criminal, are lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, "and all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to such cases necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan's exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court."
	GR NO. 140301 2005-04-26	PAUL C. DEL MORAL v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In his Comment, the Solicitor General averred that: the exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A issued in 1986, which refer to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth acquired by the late President Marcos, his family and associates, is vested in the Sandiganbayan as provided under Section 4(c) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 8249; Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction was interpreted by this Court in PCGG vs. Pena and Soriano III vs. Yuson;[16] the instant case falls under the above pronouncements because the petition for annulment before the Sandiganbayan was filed by respondent in the exercise of its powers as transferee of the interest of Mountain View, a corporation impleaded as party defendant in Civil Case No. 0010 for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, where Lee, then president of Mountain View, is a defendant; and the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction in the present case following PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan.[17]As stated, the only issue that needs to be resolved in this petition is whether the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over a petition for annulment of an RTC ruling in a partition case wherein a sequestered corporation is a party.
	GR NO. 140301 2005-04-26	PAUL C. DEL MORAL v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In PCGG vs. Peña,[18] properly cited by the Sandiganbayan, what was involved was a civil case for damages, and not a case for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, filed in the Sandiganbayan by the co-owners of the sequestered corporation against PCGG. We held: On the issue of jurisdiction squarely raised…the Court sustains petitioner's stand and holds that regional trial courts and the Court of Appeals for that matter have no jurisdiction over the Presidential Commission on Good Government in the exercise of its powers under the applicable Executive Orders and Article XVIII, section 26 of the Constitution and therefore may not interfere with and restrain or set aside the orders and actions of the Commission. Under section 2 of the President's Executive Order No. 14 issued on May 7, 1986, all cases of the Commission regarding "the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees" whether civil or criminal, are lodged within the "exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan" and all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related, to such cases necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan's exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court.[19] (Emphasis supplied) In Soriano III vs. Yuzon,[20] we reiterated the said ruling and even pronounced: …that exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would evidently extend not only to the principal causes of action, i.e., the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, but also to "all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases," such as the dispute over the sale of the shares, the propriety of the issuance of ancillary writs or provisional remedies relative thereto, the sequestration thereof, which may not be made the subject of separate actions or proceedings in another forum.[21](Emphasis supplied) In PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan,[22] respondent court used the very same arguments being raised by the petitioners herein when it motu proprio dismissed a petition for certiorari to annul the RTC decision filed before it by the PCGG. The Sandiganbayan held that not every claim against a sequestered asset or entity falls within its jurisdiction and since the case before the trial court was for enforcement of a foreign judgment and not for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, it had no jurisdiction to rule on the said petition.[23] Disagreeing with the Sandiganbayan, we explicitly ruled in this wise: . . . We rule that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to annul the judgment of the Regional Trial Court in a sequestration-related case.[24]
	GR NO. 140301 2005-04-26	PAUL C. DEL MORAL v. REPUBLIC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
"Sequestration" as defined is: . . . taking into custody or placing under the Commission's (PCGG) control or possession any asset, fund or other property, as well as relevant records, papers and documents, in order to prevent their concealment, destruction, impairment or dissipation pending determination of the question whether the said asset, fund or property is ill-gotten wealth under Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2.[30] In this case, the original area of 78,072 square meters allotted to Mountain View was reduced to 57,693 square meters, by virtue of the August 17, 1988 Order of the trial court in the partition case where Mountain View and the PCGG did not take part.[31]In PCGG vs. Sandiganbayan[32] we explained that: We are aware of the various schemes employed to circumvent sequestration orders, dissipate sequestered assets, and thwart PCGG's efforts to recover ill-gotten wealth…Hence, there is a need to vigorously guard these assets and preserve them pending resolution of the sequestration case before the Sandiganbayan, considering the paramount public policy for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth.[33] With all the assets, properties and documents of Mountain View under the control of PCGG at the time the partition case was instituted by petitioners, clearly PCGG has the legal personality to file an action of annulment of the RTC judgment in the partition case.
	GR No. 111544 2004-07-06	VICENTE T. UY v. SANDIGANBAYAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, in the case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[8] we ruled that while the PCGG is ordinarily allowed a free hand in the exercise of its administrative or executive function, the Sandiganbayan is empowered to determine in an appropriate case, if in the exercise of such functions, the PCGG has gravely abused its discretion or has overstepped the boundaries of the power conferred upon it by law. We stated: Any act or order transgressing the parameter of the objectives for which the PCGG was created, if tainted with abuse of discretion, is subject to a remedial action by the Sandiganbayan, the court vested with exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases involving the PCGG (PCGG v. Peña, 159 SCRA 556 [1988]; PCGG v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 82188, June 30, 1988) including cases filed by those who challenge PCGG's acts or orders (Holiday Inn [Phil.] v. Sandiganbayan, 186 SCRA 447 [1990]). Settled is the rule that when a law confers jurisdiction upon a court, it is deemed to have all the incidental powers necessary to render the exercise of such jurisdiction effective (Zuñiga v. Court of Appeals, 95 SCRA 740 [1980]). In the recent case of PCGG v. Sandiganbayan,[9] we stated that there is a need to vigorously guard sequestered assets and preserve them pending resolution of the sequestration case before the Sandiganbayan, considering the paramount public policy for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. We ruled that sequestered assets and corporations are legally and technically in custodia legis, under the administration of the PCGG. Executive Order No. 2 specifically prohibits the transfer, conveyance, encumbrance, or otherwise depletion or concealment of such assets and properties, under pain of penalties prescribed by law. Thus, an action which can result in the deterioration and disappearance of the sequestered assets cannot be allowed, unless there is a final adjudication and disposition of the issue as to whether these assets are ill-gotten or not, since it may result in damage or prejudice to the Republic of the Philippines.