CASE 2011-0096-A: DISSENTING OPINION IN G.R. No. 166859 – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, versus SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ET AL., G.R. No. 169203 – REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, versus SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR.,;G.R. No. 180702- REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES versus EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., (12 APRIL 2011, CAPRIO MORALES, J.)
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Before the Court are three consolidated[1][1] petitions – G.R. No. 166859 G.R. No. 169203 and G.R. No. 180702 – which involve related issues raised in Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0033-F, one of eight subdivided cases[2][2] arising from Civil Case No. 0033, the original complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) before the Sandiganbayan on July 31, 1987 which was, from 1987 to 1991, thrice amended or expanded, against respondents Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. (Cojuangco) and Cojuangco-owned corporations (Cojuangco companies), and other defendants.
Subject of Civil Case No. 0033-F are two blocks of shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation (SMC): one approximately 31% of the outstanding capital stock of SMC consisting of 33,133,266 shares known as the Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) or “CIIF Block” registered in the names of 14 holding companies,[3][3] and another approximately 20% of the outstanding capital stock of SMC consisting of 27,198,545 shares[4][4] known as the “Cojuangco et al. Block” registered in the names of respondents.
Disputed in the present petitions are the sequestration by the Republic through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and ownership of the “Cojuangco et al. Block” of SMC shares (hereafter referred to as subject SMC shares).
In précis, the Republic or the plaintiff claims, inter alia, that Cojuangco, a close associate of President Ferdinand Marcos, acquired the subject SMC shares by unlawfully using the coconut levy funds during the Marcos regime in betrayal of public trust and with brazen abuse of power. The Republic, through the PCGG, thus seeks to recover these subject SMC shares which it considers to be ill-gotten wealth “acquired and accumulated in flagrant breach of trust and of [Cojuangco et al.’s] fiduciary obligations as public officers, with grave abuse of right and power and in brazen violation of the Constitution and laws.”[5][5]
The pertinent facts common to the three petitions and the proffered issues pertaining to each are set forth below.
Following the subdivision of Civil Case No. 0033, the Republic filed a “Third Amended Complaint (Subdivided) [Re: Acquisition of San Miguel Corporation (SMC)]”[6][6] dated May 12, 1995, docketed as Civil Case No. 0033-F, which the Sandiganbayan admitted along with the other subdivided complaints on March 24, 1999.
Respondents filed various motions to resolve the issue of the validity of the writs of sequestration on grounds other than that the corporate respondents were not impleaded as defendants in the corresponding judicial action, which ground was resolved by this Court in G.R. No. 96073.[7][7] On March 5, 1999, respondents filed another reiterative motion to assert that the writs of sequestration issued by the PCGG – including nine writs, namely Writ Nos. 86-0042, 86-0062, 86-0069, 86-0085, 86-0095, 86-0096, 86-0097, 86-0098 and 87-0218 covering the subject SMC shares[8][8] – were unauthorized and never became effective.
Cojuangco and his co-respondent Cojuangco companies thereafter filed their respective Answers[9][9] of June 23, 1999 and June 28, 1999, and a joint Pre-Trial Brief[10][10] of February 11, 2000. The other defendants[11][11] in Civil Case No. 0033-F also filed their separate Answers and Pre-Trial Briefs. The Republic submitted its Pre-Trial Brief of May 9, 2000.
Several parties moved to intervene. By Orders of May 24, 2000, the Sandiganbayan allowed the intervention of the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (Cocofed) and certain individuals, and denied the intervention of Gabay Foundation, Inc. By Resolution of May 6, 2004, the Sandiganbayan denied SMC’s motion for intervention.
After the pre-trial was deemed terminated on May 24, 2000[12][12] and before the case could be set for trial, the Republic filed on July 25, 2002 a “Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and/or for Partial Summary Judgment [Re: Defendants CIIF Companies,[13][13] 14 Holding Companies and COCOFED, et al.].” With respect to this CIIF block of SMC shares, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion, by Partial Summary Judgment[14][14] of May 7, 2004, as modified by Resolution of May 11, 2007.
On July 11, 2003, the Republic filed a “Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Re: Shares in San Miguel Corporation Registered in the Respective Names of Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and the Defendant Cojuangco Companies]”[15][15] upon the thesis that the Sandiganbayan could already render a valid judgment on the basis of undisputed facts appearing on the record.
Meanwhile, by Resolution of October 8, 2003,[16][16] the Sandiganbayan “declared automatically lifted” the earlier enumerated nine writs of sequestration covering the subject SMC shares “for being null and void” and ordered the annotation of four conditions[17][17] on the relevant corporate books of SMC.
In nullifying the nine writs, the Sandiganbayan found that Writ Nos. 86-0062, 86-0069, 86-0085, 86-0095, 86-0096, 86-0097 and 86-0098 violated the rule that writs of sequestration should be issued by at least two PCGG commissioners, while the first writ – Writ No. 86-0042 – which was issued prior to the promulgation of the two-commissioner rule and the last writ – Writ No. 87-0218 – were nonetheless lifted since the records failed to show that there was prior determination of a prima facie factual basis for the sequestration.
Acting on the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of October 8, 2003 and on respondents’ Motion for Modification of the same Resolution, the Sandiganbayan, by Resolution of June 24, 2005,[18][18] upheld the lifting of the nine writs of sequestration and deleted, for being unnecessary, the last two of the four conditions it imposed, drawing the Republic to challenge on certiorari before this Court in G.R. No. 169203 the two Resolutions (Resolution of October 8, 2003 and Resolution of June 24, 2005) of the Sandiganbayan to which it attributes the commission of grave abuse of discretion in:
I.
. . . LIFTING WRIT OF SEQUESTRATION NOS. 86-0042 AND 87-0218 DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF THE BASIC REQUISITES FOR THE VALIDITY OF SEQUESTRATION[;]
II.
. . . [DENYING] PETITIONER’S ALTERNATIVE PRAYER IN ITS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF SEQUESTRATION AGAINST ALL THE SUBJECT SHARES OF STOCK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULING IN REPUBLIC V. SANDIGANBAYAN, 258 SCRA 685 (1996)[;]
III.
. . . SUBSEQUENTLY DELETING THE LAST TWO (2) CONDITIONS WHICH IT EARLIER IMPOSED ON THE SUBJECT SHARES OF STOCK.[19][19] (underscoring in the original)
In the meantime, the Sandiganbayan, upon Cojuangco’s and the Cojuangco companies’ motion, authorized with a caveat[20][20] the sale of the subject SMC shares to the SMC Retirement Plan, the proceeds[21][21] of which were applied to their outstanding loan obligations to the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB).
Eventually, the Sandiganbayan, by Resolution of December 10, 2004, denied the Republic’s motion for partial summary judgment after finding the existence of genuine factual issues. The Republic thereupon challenged this Resolution via petition for certiorari in G.R. No. 166859, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan, particularly in:
(A)
. . . HOLDING THAT THE “VARIOUS SOURCES” OF FUNDS USED IN ACQUIRING THE SUBJECT SMC SHARES OF STOCK REMAIN DISPUTED[;]
(B)
. . . IN HOLDING THAT IT IS “DISPUTED” WHETHER OR NOT COJUANGCO, JR. HAD INDEED SERVED IN THE GOVERNING BODIES OF PCA, UCPB, AND/OR CIIF OIL MILLS[; AND]
(C)
. . . IN NOT FINDING THAT COJUANGCO, JR. TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HIS POSITION AND VIOLATED HIS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATIONS IN ACQUIRING THE SUBJECT SMC SHARES OF STOCK.[22][22]
By the Republic’s claim, trial had become unnecessary in view of the admissions made by respondents in their pleadings (i.e., their respective Answers and their Pre-Trial Brief) which suffice for the rendition of a valid judgment.
During the pendency of the two petitions earlier filed with this Court, the Sandiganbayan, upon respondents’ motion, set the case for trial on August 8, 10, 11, 2006.
Consistent with its earlier position that trial had become unnecessary, the Republic did not present further evidence and instead submitted an August 28, 2006 “Manifestation of Purposes” that served as its offer of evidence. After the admission of the Republic’s documentary evidence on September 18, 2006,[23][23] respondents, who found no need to present controverting evidence, filed on November 24, 2006 a “Submission and Offer of Evidence of Defendants.” Following the admission of respondents’ documentary evidence, the parties submitted their respective Memoranda[24][24] and Reply-Memoranda.[25][25]
By Decision of November 28, 2007,[26][26] the Sandiganbayan dismissed the Third Amended Complaint in subdivided Civil Case No. 0033-F for failure of the Republic to prove by preponderance of evidence its causes of action against the defendants. Thus the Sandiganbayan disposed:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court is constrained to DISMISS, as it hereby DISMISSES, the Third Amended Complaint in subdivided Civil Case No. 0033-F for failure of plaintiff to prove by preponderance of evidence its causes of action against defendants with respect to the twenty percent (20%) outstanding shares of stock of San Miguel Corporation registered in defendants’ names, denominated herein as the “Cojuangco, et al. block” of SMC shares. For lack of satisfactory warrant, the counterclaims in defendants’ Answers are likewise ordered dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[27][27] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, the Republic’s appeal in G.R. No. 180702 upon the following issues:
I
WHETHER THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT DISMISSED CIVIL CASE NO. 0033-F; AND;
II
WHETHER OR NOT THE SUBJECT SHARES IN SMC, WHICH WERE ACQUIRED BY, AND ARE IN THE RESPECTIVE NAMES OF RESPONDENTS COJUANGCO, JR. AND THE COJUANGCO COMPANIES, SHOULD BE RECONVEYED TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES FOR HAVING BEEN ACQUIRED USING COCONUT LEVY FUNDS.[28][28] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Certain individuals and organizations jointly filed before this Court a petition-in-intervention.[29][29] From among them, only petitioner-intervenors Jovito Salonga, Wigberto Tañada, Oscar Santos, Pambansang Kilusan Ng Mga Samahan Ng Magsasaka (PAKISAMA) represented by Vicente Fabe, Surigao Del Sur Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives (SUFAC), and Moro Farmers Association of Zamboanga Del Sur (MOFAZS), the last two represented by Romeo Royandoyan, were allowed to intervene by Resolution of March 25, 2008.[30][30]
In challenging the Sandiganbayan Decision of November 28, 2007, petitioner-intervenors proffer that the Sandiganbayan gravely erred and decided the case in violation of law and applicable rulings in
I
. . . RULING THAT, WHILE ADMITTEDLY THE SUBJECT SMC SHARES WERE PURCHASED FROM LOAN PROCEEDS FROM UCPB AND ADVANCES FROM THE CIIF OIL MILLS, SAID SUBJECT SMC SHARES ARE NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY[; AND]
II
. . . IN FAILING TO RULE THAT, EVEN ASSUMING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT LOAN PROCEEDS FROM UCPB ARE NOT PUBLIC FUNDS, STILL, SINCE RESPONDENT COJUANGCO, IN THE PURCHASE OF THE SUBJECT SMC SHARES FROM SUCH LOAN PROCEEDS, VIOLATED HIS FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND TOOK A COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY THAT RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO UCPB (A PUBLIC CORPORATION), THE SUBJECT SMC SHARES SHOULD REVERT BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT.[31][31] (underscoring supplied)
The Court shall first resolve G.R. No. 169203, before jointly tackling G.R. No. 166859 and G.R. No. 180702 which involve an interlacing issue.
RULING IN G.R. NO. 169203
The issuance by the Sandiganbayan of its assailed Decision in G.R. No. 180702 notwithstanding, the Court proceeds to tackle the issues bearing on the issuance of the writs of sequestration in view of the significant and novel issues raised in G.R. No. 169203.
Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations promulgated on April 11, 1986 reads:
Sec. 3. Who may issue. A writ of sequestration or a freeze or hold order may be issued by the Commission upon the authority of at least two Commissioners, based on the affirmation or complaint of an interested party or motu proprio when the Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that the issuance thereof is warranted. (emphasis supplied)
Respecting the lifting of the seven writs, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion as their issuance violated the immediately-quoted provision of Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations. Indeed, the Sandiganbayan merely adhered to this Court’s 1998 ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan[32][32] which construed Section 3 to mean that the authority given by two commissioners for the issuance of a sequestration, freeze or hold order should be evident in the order itself.
The construction advanced by petitioner creates rather than clears ambiguity. The fair and sensible interpretation of the PCGG Rule in question is that the authority given by two commissioners for the issuance of a sequestration, freeze or hold order should be evident in the order itself. Simply stated, the writ must bear the signatures of two commissioners, because their signatures are the best evidence of their approval thereof. Otherwise, the validity of such order will be open to question and the very evil sought to be avoided— the use of spurious or fictitious sequestration orders— will persist. The corporation or entity against which such writ is directed will not be able to visually determine its validity, unless the required signatures of at least two commissioners authorizing its issuance appear on the very document itself. The issuance of sequestration orders requires the existence of a prima facie case. The two-commissioner rule is obviously intended to assure a collegial determination of such fact. In this light, a writ bearing only one signature is an obvious transgression of the PCGG Rules.
Inasmuch as sequestration tends to impede or limit the exercise of proprietary rights by private citizens, it should be construed strictly against the state, pursuant to the legal maxim that statutes in derogation of common rights are in general strictly construed and rigidly confined to cases clearly within their scope and purpose. x x x[33][33] (emphasis supplied)
The Republic, in fact, impliedly concedes that the seven writs of sequestration were tainted with violations of the two-commissioner rule.
With respect to the lifting of the two other writs, Writ Nos. 86-0042 and 87-0218 which, albeit did not violate the two-commissioner rule,[34][34] were lifted for lack of prima facie basis for their issuance, that involves a factual issue. It is settled that the Court does not resolve a question of fact, which exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation.[35][35]
IN ANY EVENT, I find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in arriving at its finding that the issuance of the two writs lacks prima facie factual foundation that the properties covered thereby are ill-gotten wealth. For, for the issuance of a writ of sequestration to be valid, it must not only be shown that it was authorized by the PCGG and was signed by at least two commissioners; it must also be shown that there is a prima facie showing that the property subject thereof sequestered was ill-gotten wealth.[36][36]
The absence of a prior determination by the PCGG of a prima facie basis for the sequestration order is, unavoidably, a fatal defect to render the sequestration of a corporation and its properties void ab initio.[37][37] That there are allegations in the subsequently filed complaint indicative of ill-gotten wealth does not prove per se that an actual deliberation or consideration of evidence was priorly made to arrive at the required quantum of proof for the issuance of the sequestration orders. As found by the Sandiganbayan, the records of the PCGG were either utterly silent or entirely insufficient on its compliance with this requirement. There were no minutes of any meeting leading to the issuance of Writ No. 86-0042 which was signed “for the commission” by Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista on April 8, 1986. As for Writ No. 87-0218 which was issued on May 27, 1987, the only relevant document presented relates to the minutes of the May 26, 1987 meeting which reads:
The Commission approved the recommendation of Dir. Cruz to sequester all the shares of stock, assets, records, and documents of Balete Ranch, Inc. and the appointment of the Fiscal Committee with ECI Challenge, Inc. / Pepsi-Cola for Balete Ranch, Inc. and the Aquacor Marketing Corp. vice Atty. S. Occena. The objective is to consolidate the Fiscal Committee activities covering three associated entities of Mr. Eduardo Cojuangco. Upon recommendation of Comm. Rodrigo, the reconstitution of the Board of Directors of the three companies was deferred for further study.[38][38]
The dearth of any record from which a deliberation or derivation of a prima facie finding could be established renders nugatory the “opportunity to contest” afforded to a person whose property is sequestered.
While it has been held in Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, Inc. that orders of sequestration may issue ex parte¸ it was emphasized that a prima facie factual foundation that the properties sequestered are “ill-gotten wealth” is required, and that the person whose property is sequestered has the opportunity to contest the validity of sequestration pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules and Regulations of PCGG itself. Indeed, that “opportunity to contest” includes resort to the courts. The “opportunity to contest” will be meaningless unless there is a record, on the basis of which the reviewing authority, including the court, may determine whether the PCGG’s ruling that the property sequestered is “ill-gotten wealth” was issued “with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” That record should include the reason why the shares of stock are being sequestered and the record of the proceedings, on the basis of which, issuance of the order of sequestration was authorized. Those records do not exist here.[39][39] (emphasis in the original)
While certain statements in the 1995 case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan–[40][40] which likewise involved Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0033– could be construed to mean that this Court therein ruled that the subject SMC shares are prima facie ill-gotten, those statements must be taken in their proper context. The issue in that case was not whether there was a prima facie case that the subject SMC shares, inter alia, were ill-gotten to warrant the issuance of sequestration orders. The issue was, as therein stated:
DOES INCLUSION IN THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PCGG BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN OF SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS OF CORPORATIONS BEING “DUMMIES” OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF ONE OR ANOTHER OF THE DEFENDANTS NAMED THEREIN AND USED AS INSTRUMENTS FOR ACQUISITION, OR AS BEING DEPOSITARIES OR PRODUCTS, OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH; OR THE ANNEXING TO SAID COMPLAINTS OF A LIST OF SAID FIRMS, BUT WITHOUT ACTUALLY IMPLEADING THEM AS DEFENDANTS, SATISFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A SEIZURE EFFECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1, s. 1986, THE CORRESPONDING “JUDICIAL ACTION OR PROCEEDING” SHOULD BE FILED WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 26, ARTICLE XVIII, OF THE (1987) CONSTITUTION? (underscoring supplied)
That this Court in the immediately-cited 1995 Republic v. Sandiganbayan case left unresolved the issue of whether there was prima facie factual basis for the issuance of the sequestration orders of subject SMC shares is plain from its Resolution of August 6, 1996 disposing of the PCGG’s motions for reconsideration, viz.:
The Court deliberated x x x and thereafter Resolved to DENY both motions for lack of merit. The Court has made known its mandate that the ultimate factual issue of who are the legitimate, bona fide owners of the sequestered assets be resolved by the Sandiganbayan with all reasonable dispatch, as well as all other related and incidental questions, such as whether there is prima facie factual foundation for the sequestration of said assets or for apprehension of dissipation, loss or wastage in the event the sequestered shares of stock are in the interim voted by their registered holders. It is the Sandiganbayan which must now be acknowledged to have discretion and authority to determine the precise issues which still have to be, or need no longer be, passed upon and adjudicated in light of the relevant dispositions of this Court, the evidence already before the Sandiganbayan, and whatever comments, observations, suggestions and proposals may be submitted by the parties – these being details which this Court need not and will not attend to.[41][41] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Clearly, this Court in the same case did not touch upon the validity of the writs of sequestration on grounds other than the non-impleading of the corporate respondents as defendants in the corresponding judicial action instituted within six months after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, as required under Section 26, Article XVIII thereof. In fact, the corporate respondents withdrew the assertion of lack of prima facie factual basis as a ground in assailing the issuance of sequestration orders and limited their petition on just one ground.[42][42] On whether the objection of lack of prima facie factual basis could still be validly entertained, despite the omnibus motion rule,[43][43] I need not belabor this issue, especially since none of the parties raised or considered this point.
The Republic goes on to fault the Sandiganbayan for denying its alternative prayer in its motion for reconsideration – for the issuance by the Sandiganbayan of an order of sequestration against the subject SMC shares in accordance with this Court’s decision in the 1996 case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[44][44] the pertinent portion of which reads:
x x x In brief, the matter of the legality and propriety of the sequestration of respondent corporation became but an incident in said Civil Case No. 0010 and thus subject exclusively to judicial adjudication by the respondent Court. We thus uphold the ruling of respondent Court on this issue:
x x x (c) While Freeze Orders and writs of sequestration may continue to be issued within eighteen (18) months from February 2, 1987, this could obviously refer only to matters which have not yet been subject of litigation initiated by the Republic (i.e., the PCGG); because
(d) Once suit has been initiated on a particular subject, the entire issue of the alleged ill-gotten wealth— the acts or omissions of a particular defendant or set of defendants— will have become subject exclusively to judicial adjudication. The issue of ill-gotten properties under the causes of action alleged in the Complaints will have been removed from the quasi-judicial level of the PCGG and elevated to the judicial level of the SANDIGANBAYAN, the Court which today maintains exclusive original jurisdiction on these matters;
(e) Writs may thereafter [i.e., after the lapse of eighteen months from February 2, 1987] still issue, of course, and writs already issued may thereafter be certainly quashed, dissolved, set aside or modified; but this time, only by the Courts, whether the Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court. The power over these assets has become exclusively judicial.[45][45] (italics in the original)
Nowhere in the immediately-quoted portion of this Court’s decision was it mentioned that the Sandiganbayan has the power to issue a writ of sequestration similar to that vested in the PCGG. The quoted portion relates solely to the resolution of the second issue in that case – whether the Sandiganbayan has “jurisdiction over a motion questioning the validity of a ‘sequestration order’ issued by a duly authorized representative of the PCGG”. In ruling in the affirmative, this Court settled that the matter of the legality and propriety of a sequestration, being an incident of the case, is subject “exclusively to judicial adjudication” by the Sandiganbayan. The Court therein emphatically reiterated that the remedies are always subject to the control of the Sandiganbayan which acts as the arbiter between the PCGG and the claimants. Moreover, the Court, in no uncertain terms, recognized that under no circumstance can a sequestration or freeze order be validly issued by one who is not a Commissioner of the PCGG. The Sandiganbayan’s ample power referred to therein to control the proceedings refers to the issuance of ancillary orders or writs of attachment, upon proper application, to effectuate its judgment, but does not include the power to seize in the first instance properties purporting to be ill-gotten.[46][46]
With regard to the order for the annotation of the four restrictive conditions on the relevant corporate books of the SMC, despite the lifting of the writs of sequestration, the Sandiganbayan was bereft of jurisdiction to do so. While it has ample power to make such interlocutory orders as may be necessary to ensure that its judgment would not be rendered ineffective,[47][47] that is not a license for it to motu proprio issue every order it may deem fit.
The intended annotation of the four conditions is akin to a notice of lis pendens, which applies only in an action affecting the title or right of possession of real property. The case involves personal property, however.
Under the third, fourth and fifth causes of action of the Complaint, there are allegations of breach of trust and confidence and usurpation of business opportunities in conflict with petitioners’ fiduciary duties to the corporation, resulting in damage to the Corporation. Under these causes of action, respondents are asking for the delivery to the Corporation of possession of the parcels of land and their corresponding certificates of
title. Hence, the suit necessarily affects the title to or right of possession of the real property sought to be reconveyed. The Rules of Court allows the annotation of a notice of lis pendens in actions affecting the title or right of possession of real property. x x x[48][48] (italics in the original omitted; underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Even in cases of attachment, both the Revised Rules of Court and Corporation Code do not require annotation on the corporation’s stock and transfer books for the attachment of shares of stock to be valid and binding on the corporation and third party.[49][49]
If the Republic wanted to be assured that any judgment in its favor would be enforceable, there are available remedies for the purpose. The 1998 Republic v. Sandiganbayan[50][50] case instructs:
In brief, sequestration is not the be-all and end-all of the efforts of the government to recover unlawfully amassed wealth. The PCGG may still proceed to prove in the main suit who the real owners of these assets are. Besides, as we reasserted in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, the PCGG may still avail itself of ancillary writs, since “Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction over the sequestration cases demands that it should also have the authority to preserve the subject matter of the cases, the alleged ill-gotten wealth properties x x x.”
With the use of proper remedies and upon substantial proof, properties in litigation may, when necessary, be placed in custodia legis for the complete determination of the controversy or for the effective enforcement of the judgment. However, for violating the Constitution and its own Rules, the PCGG may no longer exercise dominion and custody over Respondent Corporation and the shares it owns in PTIC. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It may be argued that respondents, not having elevated the June 24, 2005 Resolution that denied their Motion for Modification, albeit the Sandiganbayan partially modified its earlier imposition of conditions on the lifting of the nine writs of sequestration, are presumed to be satisfied therewith, hence, no modification of judgment or new affirmative relief can be granted to them at this stage.[51][51]
Prudential Bank & Trust Co. v. Reyes,[52][52] however, distinguishes an ordinary appeal from a special civil action of certiorari, insofar as the application of the rule against granting affirmative reliefs to a non-appealing party is involved. On the one hand, it is settled that in ordinary appeals a party who did not appeal cannot seek affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the disputed decision. An appellant can assign as many errors as he may deem to be reversible. On the other hand, resort to a judicial review in a petition for certiorari is confined to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion that go into the validity of the challenged issuance.
In the petition at bar, the deletion by the Sandiganbayan of some of the conditions is intimately related to the corollary retention of the remaining conditions. Otherwise stated, the Court, in determining grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan in removing, by Resolution of June 24, 2005, two of the four conditions, would necessarily and inescapably have to come to terms with the Sandiganbayan’s maintaining the other conditions, which is merely a consequence of the single act of modifying the Resolution of October 8, 2003.
IN SUM, I find that the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion insofar as it lifted the nine writs of sequestration, but it was bereft of jurisdiction in imposing the restrictive conditions. The lifting of the sequestration orders does not ipso facto mean that the sequestered properties are not ill-gotten bears reiteration, however. For the effect of the lifting of the sequestration against a corporation or its shares is merely to terminate the role of the government as conservator thereof.[53][53]
RULING IN G.R. NOS. 166859 & 180702
As reflected in the proceedings narrated above, the petition in G.R. No. 166859 challenging the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the Republic’s motion for partial summary judgment has been overtaken by events that culminated in the promulgation by the Sandiganbayan of its Decision of November 28, 2007 which is being assailed in G.R. No. 180702. Records show that the parties were subsequently given the opportunity to present evidence necessary to establish their respective claims or defenses. As noted earlier, however, they opted to forego presenting evidence during the trial.
Respondents raise a procedural objection on the basis of the limitation of the remedy under Rule 45, arguing that the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 180702 raises questions of fact, of which this Court cannot take cognizance as it is limited to reviewing errors of law.
The distinction between “questions of law” and “questions of fact” has long been settled. There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts, and which does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.[54][54] Whether a question is one of law or of fact is not determined by the appellation given to such question by the party raising it; rather, it is whether a court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[55][55]
The resolution of the issues involved in G.R. No. 180702 does not entail a reevaluation of the probative value of documentary evidence or the credibility of witnesses, for none was presented during the trial. The Court needs only to look into the pleadings and the parties’ submissions without necessarily going into the truth or falsity thereof.[56][56] Any review would only be limited to the inquiry of whether the law was properly applied given the submissions which are part of the record, the fact of filing of which is not contested by the parties.[57][57] Since the petition assails the correctness of the conclusions drawn by the Sandiganbayan from the set of facts it considered, the question is one of law.[58][58]
In the joint determination of the two petitions, the linking bone of contention boils down to the core issue of whether, on the basis of the submissions made of record, the subject SMC shares should be reconveyed to the Republic for having been acquired with the use of coconut levy funds.
It is proper to dissuade any confusion that might be engendered without a clear delineation of the set of proceedings that, on the one hand, transpired up to that point where the motion for summary judgment was resolved, which is the one pertinent to G.R. No. 166859, and, on the other hand, the subsequent settings for trial that afforded both the Republic and Cojuangco, et al. the opportunity to present evidence until the rendition of the assailed Decision, which is the episode to be considered in G.R. No. 180702.
Being mindful of this marked difference in terms of the proceedings conducted is highly important in order to illustrate and recognize situations where, as in this case, a plaintiff may be denied summary judgment but, if the case proceeds ceteris paribus,[59][59] a plaintiff may yet obtain a favorable judgment when the defendant fails to (i) vary or override a judicial admission in instances where it may be allowed, (ii) refute a disputable presumption or prima facie pronouncement, or (iii) otherwise go forward with the burden of evidence in proving an affirmative defense or disproving a negative assertion.
For, in the present case, I find the denial of the motion for summary judgment to be proper only upon the grant to Cojuangco, et al. of the benefit of all favorable inferences in viewing the evidence and that any doubt as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved against the movant Republic.[60][60] This afforded Cojuangco, et al. the entitlement to defend or go to trial, precisely to demonstrate that their defense is not sham, fictitious or contrived, which “benefit of favorable inference” could not have otherwise been settled through the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.
In its Resolution of December 10, 2004 (assailed in G.R. No. 166859), which was heavily relied upon in its Decision of November 28, 2007 (assailed in G.R. No. 180702), the Sandiganbayan enumerated the following:
UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. admits that he acquired in 1983 approximately twenty percent (20%) of the outstanding shares of stock of SMC which are registered in his name and in the name of defendant corporations, x x x[61][61]
2. Defendant Cojuangco used the proceeds of loans obtained by said defendant from various sources in purchasing the said block of shares;
3. The said block of shares were purchased by defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. from Ayala Corporation, of which Mr. Enrique Zobel was then the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and from several other corporations and individuals;
4. The total of 27,198,545 shares of stocks in the SMC at the time of sequestration in 1989, by reason of the declaration of 100% stock dividends and subsequent stock split, has grown to 108,846,948, x x x[62][62]
5. “There are ‘indications . . .’ that several of the corporations listed in the complaint against Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., are ‘dummies’ or manipulated instruments, or repositories of wealth deceitfully amassed at the expense of the People or simply fruits thereof.” (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 376 [1995])[63][63]
In both the Resolution of December 10, 2004 and the Decision of November 28, 2007, the Sandiganbayan consistently pointed out the “disputed facts” by outlining the genuine factual issues, viz.:
DISPUTED FACTS
x x x x
1) What are the “various sources” of funds, which the defendant Cojuangco and his companies claim they utilized to acquire the disputed SMC shares?
2) Whether or not such funds acquired from alleged “various sources” can be considered coconut levy funds;
3) Whether or not defendant Cojuangco had indeed served in the governing bodies of PCA, UCPB and/or CIIF Oil Mills at the time the funds used to purchase the SMC shares were obtained such that he owed a fiduciary duty to render an account to these entities as well as to the coconut farmers;
4) Whether or not defendant Cojuangco took advantage of his position and/ or close ties with then President Marcos to obtain favorable concessions or exemptions from the usual financial requirements from the lending banks and/or coco-levy funded companies, in order to raise the funds to acquire the disputed SMC shares; and if so, what are these favorable concessions or exemptions?[64][64]
A considered look at the pleadings submitted by the parties is thus imperative.
Pertinent portions of the Third Amended Complaint read:
x x x x
4. Defendant EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., was Governor of Tarlac, Congressman of then First District of Tarlac, and Ambassador-at-Large in the Marcos Administration. He was commissioned Lieutenant Colonel in the Philippine Air Force, Reserve. Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., otherwise known as the “Coconut King” was head of the coconut monopoly which was instituted by Defendant Ferdinand E. Marcos, by virtue of the Presidential Decrees. Defendant Eduardo E. Cojuangco, Jr., who was also one of the closest associates of the Defendant Ferdinand E. Marcos, held the positions of Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority, the United Coconut Mills, Inc., President and Board Director of the United Coconut Planters Bank, United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation, and United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. He was also the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and the controlling stockholder of the San Miguel Corporation. He may be served summons at x x x.
4.a One of the companies beneficially owned or controlled by Defendant Eduardo E. Cojuangco and/or by the individual defendants is/was the San Miguel Corporation (SMC) organized according to Philippine laws.
x x x x
14. Defendant Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. taking undue advantage of his association, influence and connection, 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 – misused coconut levy funds to buy out majority of the outstanding shares of stock of San Miguel Corporation in order to control the largest agri-business, foods and beverage company in the Philippines, more particularly described as follows:
(a) Having control over the coconut levy, Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco invested the funds in diverse activities, such as the various businesses SMC was engaged in (e.g. large beer, food, packaging, and livestock);
(b) He entered SMC in early 1983 when he bought most of the 20 million shares Enrique Zobel owned in the Company. The shares, worth $49 million, represented 20% of SMC;
x x x x
(i) Mr. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. acquired a total of 16,276,879 shares of San Miguel Corporation from the Ayala group; of said shares, a total of 8,138440 (broken into 7,128,227 Class A and 1,010,213 Class B shares) were placed in the names of Meadowlark Plantations, Inc. (2,034,610) and Primavera Farms, Inc. (4,069,220). The Articles of Incorporation of these three companies show that Atty. Jose C. Concepcion of ACCRA owns 99.6% of the entire outstanding stock. The same shareholder executed three (3) separate “Declaration of Trust and Assignment of Subscription” in favor of a BLANK assignee pertaining to his shareholdings in Primavera Farms, Inc., Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc. and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc.
(j) The same stockholder (Jose C. Concepcion), together with all the four other stockholders in the trhee (sic) named corporations, simultaneously executed Voting Trust Agreements in favor of Mr. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. over the SMC shares of stock which they acquired. In these trust deeds, Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. undertook to hold the SMC shares in trust for the beneficial owners, and to turn over with utmost speed the dividends on the shares to the latter.
(k) The other Respondent Corporations are owned by interlocking shareholders who are likewise lawyers in the ACCRA Law Offices and had admitted their status as “nominee stockholders” only.
(k-1) The Corporations: Agricultural Consultancy Services, Inc., Archipelago Realty Corporation, Balete Ranch, Inc., Discovery Realty Corporation, First United Transport, Inc., Kaunlaran Agricultural Corporation, Land Air International Marketing Corporation, Misty Mountains Agricultural Corporation, Pastoral Farms, Inc., Oro Verde Services, Inc., Radyo Filipino Corporation, Reddee Developers, Inc., Verdant Plantations, Inc. and Vesta Agricultural Corporation, were incorporated by lawyers of ACCRA Law Offices.
(k-2) With respect to PCY Oil Manufacturing Corporation and Metroplex Commodities, Inc., they are controlled respectively by HYCO, Inc. and Ventures Securities, Inc. both of which were incorporated likewise by lawyers of ACCRA Law Offices.
(k-3) The stockholders who appear as incorporators in most of the other Respondent Corporations are also llawyers (sic) of the ACCRA Law Offices, who as early as 1987 had admitted under oath that they were acting only as “nominees stockholders.”
(l) These companies, which ACCRA Law Offices organized for Defendant Cojuangco to be able to control more than 60% of SMC shares, were funded by institutions which depended upon the coconut levy such as the UCPB, UNICOM, United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corp. (COCOLIFE), among others. Cojuangco and his ACCRA lawyers used the funds from 6 large coconut oil mills and 10 copra trading companies to borrow money from the UCPB and purchase these holding companies and the SMC stocks. Cojuangco used $150 million from the coconut levy, broken down as follows:
Amount Source Purpose
(in million)
$22.26 Oil Mills equity in holding
companies
$65.6 Oil Mills loan to holding
companies
$61.2 UCPB loan to holding
companies (164)
The entire amount, therefore, came from the coconut levy, some passing through the Unicom oil mills, others directly from the UCPB.
x x x x
(o) Along with Cojuangco, Defendant Enrile and ACCRA also had interests in SMC, broken down as follows:
% of SMC Owner
Cojuangco
31.3% coconut levy money
18% companies linked to Cojuangco
5.2% government
5.2% SMC employee retirement fund
Enrile & ACCRA
1.8% Enrile
1.8% Jaka Investment Corporation
1.8% ACCRA Investment Corporation[65][65]
In Cojuangco’s Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, he made the following material admissions:
2.01 Herein defendant admits paragraph 4 only insofar as it alleges the following:
(a) That herein defendant has held the following positions in government: Governor of Tarlac, Congressman of the then First District of Tarlac, Ambassador-at-Large, Lieutenant Colonel in the Philippine Air Force and Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority;
(b) That he held the following positions in private corporations: Member of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc.; President and member of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Planters Bank, United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation, and United Coconut Chemicals, Inc.; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of San Miguel Corporation; x x x
x x x x
5.02.b. Herein defendant admits paragraph 14(b) of the complaint insofar as it is alleged therein that in 1983, he acquired shares of stocks representing approximately 20% of the outstanding capital stock of San Miguel Corporation; herein defendant specifically denies that the shares of stock in SMC which he purchased belonged to Mr. Enrique Zobel, the truth being that the said shares of stock were owned by the Ayala Corporation, of which Mr. Enrique Zobel was then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and several other corporations and individuals. Herein defendant further denies the allegation, implication and insinuation, whether contained in paragraph 14(b) or in any other portion of the complaint that he acquired the aforesaid interest in San Miguel Corporation with the use of the coconut levy funds, or in any other manner contrary to law, the truth being that herein defendant acquired the said shares of stock using the proceeds of loans obtained by herein defendant from various sources.
x x x x
5.02.i. Herein defendant admits paragraph 14(i) of the complaint insofar as it is alleged therein that he acquired the San Miguel shares registered in the name of Ayala Corporation and that some of said shares were registered in the names of Meadowlark Plantations, Inc. and Primavera Farms, Inc. Herein defendant further admits that, at the time of their incorporation, 99.6% of the said shares in said corporations were registered in the name of Atty. Jose C. Concepcion. Herein defendant likewise admits that Atty. Jose C. Concepcion executed three (3) separate Declarations of Trust and Assignment of Subscription” in favor of an unnamed assignee pertaining to his shares in Primavera Farms, Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc. and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc.
5.02.j. Herein defendant admits paragraph 14(j) of the complaint insofar as it is alleged therein that Atty. Jose C. Concepcion and other registered stockholders of Primavera Farms, Inc, Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc. and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc. executed Voting Trust Agreements in favor of herein defendant over the shares of stock in SMC registered in the names of said corporations. Herein defendant however denies that, in said deeds of trust, herein defendant “undertook to hold the SMC shares in trust for the beneficial owners, and to turn over with utmost speed the dividends received on the shares of the latter“, the truth being that herein defendant is the true, lawful and beneficial owner of the SMC shares of stock registered in the names of Primavera Farms, Inc, Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc. and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc.
5.02.k. Herein defendant admits paragraph 14(k) inclusive of paragraphs (K-2) and (K-2), insofar as it is alleged that Agricultural Consultancy Services, Inc., Archipelago Realty Corporation, Balete Ranch, Inc., Black Stallion Ranch, Inc., Discovery Realty Corporation, First United Transport, Inc., Kaunlaran Agricultural Corporation, Landair International Marketing Corporation, Misty Mountains Agricultural Corporation, Pastoral Farms, Inc., Oro Verde Services, Inc., Radyo Filipino Corporation, Reddee Developers, Inc., Verdant Plantations, Inc., and Vesta Agricultural Corporation, Hyco, Inc and Ventures Securities, Inc. were incorporated by lawyers of the ACCRA Law Offices. Herein defendant, however, denies, for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof, paragraph 14(k-3) of the complaint to the effect that “[t]he stockholders who appear as incorporators in most of the other Respondent Corporations are also lawyers of the ACCRA Law Offices, who as early as 1987 had admitted under oath that they were acting only as “nominee stockholders”.
5.02. l. Herein defendant denies paragraph 14(l) of the complaint, the truth being that the companies incorporated in his behalf by the ACCRA Law Office cumulatively own less than 20% of the outstanding capital stock of SMC, that herein defendant did not use the coconut levy funds, or any part thereof, to acquire his shareholdings in SMC.
x x x x
5.02.o. Herein defendant admits paragraph 14(o) of the complaint insofar as it is alleged therein that herein defendant and/or the corporations affiliated with him own approximately 18% of the outstanding common stock of SMC. Herein defendant however denies that he owns or has an interest in the SMC shares acquired with the use of ‘coconut levy money’, those owned by ‘government’ or those owned by the ‘SMC employee retirement fund’, the truth being that herein defendant has no interest in those shareholdings. Herein defendant likewise denies the allegations in paragraph 14(o) of the complaint in regard the shareholdings in SMC of defendant Juan Ponce Enrile, Jaka Investments Corporation and ACCRA Investment Corporation for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.[66][66] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Similarly, in their Answer to the Third Amended Complaint, the Cojuangco companies made the following material admissions:
5.02. Insofar as it refers to the other defendants, herein defendants deny paragraph 14 of the complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof. Insofar as it refers to herein defendants, they deny paragraph 14 of the complaint, the truth being that herein defendants have not been used as fronts, whether by defendant Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. or any other defendant, for the purposes stated therein. The shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation (SMC) registered in the names of herein defendants were not acquired with the use of coconut levy funds.
5.02.b. Herein defendants deny paragraph 14(h) the truth being that herein defendant corporations were all duly incorporated and constituted, and their assets acquired, in accordance with the Corporation Code and all pertinent laws.
5.02.c. Herein defendants deny paragraph 14(i) of the complaint for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief except in so far as it is alleged that they are the registered owners of certain shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation.
x x x x
5.02.e. Herein defendants specifically deny paragraph 14(l) of the complaint in so far as it alleges that shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation of defendants were acquired with the use of coconut levy funds, the truth being that whatever funds were used to acquire shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation belonged to them; the rest of the allegations are denied for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief.
x x x x
5.02.h. Herein defendants admit paragraph 14(o) of the complaint insofar as it is alleged therein that herein defendants own approximately 18% of the outstanding common stock of SMC. Herein defendants however deny they own or have interest in the SMC shares acquired with the use of ‘coconut levy fund’, the truth being that herein defendants have no interest in those shareholdings. Herein defendants likewise deny the allegations in paragraph 14(o) of the complaint in regard the shareholdings in SMC of defendant Juan Ponce Enrile, Jaka Investment Corporation, and ACCRA Investment Corporation for lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof.[67][67] (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Sources of Funds to Acquire
the subject SMC shares
The Sandiganbayan’s finding that the “’various sources’ of funds” that respondents used to acquire the subject SMC shares is a disputed fact is inaccurate.
As listed in the undisputed facts, the source was already particularly identified as “loans,” as confirmed by the exact phrase employed by Cojuangco. In his Answer, Cojuangco denied that he acquired the SMC shares “with the use of coconut levy funds, or in any other manner contrary to law, the truth being that herein defendant acquired the said shares of stock using the proceeds of loans obtained by herein defendant from various sources.”[68][68] His affirmative defense, therefore, is that the funds came from a different (not coconut levy funds) source in the nature of loans. Cojuangco companies’ Answer, meanwhile, avers that “whatever funds were used to acquire [the SMC shares] belonged to them.”[69][69] Their affirmative defense points to privately owned funds as the source of payment of the purchase price. As will be explained later, these affirmative defenses need to be proved, yet Cojuangco, et al. did not present any evidence.
The Sandiganbayan’s finding totally disregards the statements of respondents in their joint Pre-Trial Brief that they obtained loans and credit advances from the UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills for the purchase of the subject SMC shares. Consider Cojuangco and the Cojuangco companies’ statements in their Pre-Trial Brief:
IV.
PROPOSED EVIDENCE
x x x x
4.01 x x x Assuming, however, that plaintiff presents evidence to support its principal contentions, defendant’s evidence in rebuttal would include testimonial and documentary evidence showing: a) the ownership of the shares of stock prior to their acquisition by defendants (listed in Annexes ‘A’ and ‘B’); b) the consideration for the acquisition of the shares of stock by the persons or companies in whose names the shares of stock are now registered; and c) the source of the funds used to pay the purchase price.
4.02 Herein defendants intend to present the following evidence:
a. Proposed Exhibits __, __, __,
Records of San Miguel Stock Transfer Service Corporation which would show from whom the shares of stock listed in Annexes “A” and “B” were acquired, the Certificates of Stocks which were cancelled as a result of the transactions, and the resulting Certificates of Stock in the names of the present stockholders listed in Annexes “A” and “B,” and upon whose instructions the transfers and the corresponding cancellation of Certificates of Stock and the issuance of new Certificates of Stock were made;
b. Proposed Exhibits __, __, __,
Records of the United Coconut Planters Bank which would show borrowings of the companies listed in Annexes “A” and “B”, or companies affiliated or associated with them, which were used to source payment of the shares of stock of the San Miguel Corporation subject of this case.
4.03 Witnesses.
(a) Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., who shall testify on the acquisition of the SMC shares and the sources of the funds utilized in the acquisition of the same. He will also testify on the injury that he has suffered as a consequence of the sequestration of the SMC shares listed in Annex “B” and the filing of the present suit.
(b) A representative of the United Coconut Planters Bank who will testify in regard the loans which were used to source the payment of the purchase price of the SMC shares of stock.
(c) A representative of the CIIF Oil Mills who will testify in regard the loans or credit advances which were used to source the payment of the purchase price of the SMC shares of stock.
d) A representative of San Miguel Stock Transfer Service Corporation who will testify on the records referred to in paragraph 4.02(a).
4.04. Herein defendants reserve the right to present such other evidence as may be warranted during the course of the trial of the above-entitled case.[70][70] (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Evidently, the identity of the various sources in funding the stock purchase became pronounced during the pre-trial. The statements are clear admission on respondents’ part that the purchase price of the subject SMC shares were paid, either in whole or in part, out of loans and credit advances from the UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills.
Had there been other sources, Cojuangco and the Cojuangco companies would have readily mentioned them at the pre-trial stage where all documents intended to be presented during trial with a statement of the purposes of their offer[71][71] should be stated. The reservation to present other evidence was, it bears noting, conditioned only on what may be warranted in the course of trial.
Respondents having admitted that such loans and credit advances funded the acquisition of the SMC shares, the plaintiff-Republic did not have to present proof thereof anymore. For judicial admissions do not require proof[72][72] to establish that UCPB loans and CIIF Oil Mills credit advances financed the stock purchase transaction of subject SMC shares.
The majority holds that Cojuangco, et al.’s joint Pre-Trial Brief did not submit or disclose what these loans were, since they were merely placed under “Proposed Evidence” which were not yet intended as admissions of any fact.
While the majority agrees that certain statements in a pre-trial brief can be the source of admissions,[73][73] it limits them to those clearly identified by a submitting party as expressly admitted facts.
I do take exception to this hard-and-fast rule.
Bearing in mind the purpose of pre-trial which is full disclosure to avoid surprise, Cojuangco, et al.’s Pre-Trial Brief undoubtedly presents in a capsule the defense’s version of the case.
In Republic v. Sarabia,[74][74] the Court found further enlightenment from a party’s Pre-trial Brief in arriving as to the precise time at which just compensation should be fixed (i.e., as of the time of actual taking of possession by the expropriating entity), which was found to be sometime in 1956. The Court therein did not stop with the admissions in the Answer but appreciated the submissions in the Pre-Trial Brief to buttress the same. Aside from lifting those under the sub-heading of “Admissions,” it considered those under “Brief Statement of Respondent’s Claim” that presented the proposed version of the party without the benefit of having elicited an acceptance of the stipulation from the other party. The pertinent portion of that decision reads:
Besides, respondents no less averred in their Pre-Trial Brief:
I. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENTS’ CLAIM
1. That the defendants are the owners of that certain parcel of land located at Pook, Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines, which is covered by Original Certificate Title No T-1559-6. A portion of the land has been occupied by the plaintiff for many years now which portion of land is indicated on the sketch plan which is marked Annex ‘B of the complaint.
xxx xxx xxx
I1. ADMISSION
xxx xxx xxx
2. That this land has been in the possession of the plaintiff for many years now without paying any rental to the defendants. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Surely, private respondents’ admissions in their Answer and Pre-Trial Brief are judicial admissions which render the taking of the lot in 1956 conclusive or even immutable. And well-settled is the rule that an admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. A judicial admission is an admission made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, for purposes of the truth of some alleged fact, which said party cannot thereafter disprove. Indeed, an admission made in the pleading cannot be controverted by the party making such admission and are conclusive as to him, and that all proofs submitted by him contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored whether objection is interposed by a party or not.[75][75] (underscoring supplied)
Indeed, the Rules re-echo that “[t]he parties are bound by the representations and statements in their respective pre-trial briefs.”[76][76] In fact, in the present case, the Sandiganbayan’s Pre-Trial Order reminded the parties:
x x x At this stage, the plaintiff then reiterated its earlier request to consider the pre-trial terminated. The Court sought the positions of the other parties, whether or not they too were prepared to submit their respective positions on the basis if what was before the Court at pre-trial. All of the parties, in the end, have come to an agreement that they were submitting their own respective positions for purposes of pre-trial on the basis of the submissions made of record. (underscoring supplied)
One such admission is the submission in Cojuangco, et al.’s joint Pre-Trial Brief that revealed the identity of the loans were advances from CIIF Oil Mills and loans from UCPB. They are bound by this representation in their Pre-Trial Brief, at least, insofar as the basic fact that the borrowings were obtained from CIIF Oil Mills and UCPB.
Cojuangco, et al. are not bound, of course, to present them during trial to ventilate the full details of these loan transactions. As correctly stated by the majority opinion, the witnesses and documents might or might not be presented at all. The Republic, meanwhile, asserts that the specific details thereof are no longer necessary to prove its case.
The express condition that the plaintiff presents first its evidence is inherent in every proceeding. In fact, a defendant may file a demurrer to evidence after the presentation of plaintiff’s evidence. The option to avail of the opportunity to present defense evidence is the call of the defendant, but he must be mindful of whatever consequences an omission thereof may present, which will be discussed hereunder.
It is also observed that during the pre-trial conference, the Sandiganbayan was stuck in belaboring the extraction of “specifics of the identification of these wrongs or omissions.”[77][77] If there was a need for a definite statement of matters which were not averred with sufficient particularity, it should have been defendants who have filed at the outset a motion for a bill of particulars. That all defendants were able to intelligently prepare their respective responsive pleadings can only mean that the allegations of the Complaint were sufficiently clear to them.
The Sandiganbayan could have proceeded in accomplishing the other objectives of a pre-trial and allowing the parties to lay down their available evidence, whatever these may be, without pre-judging the inadequacy and competency of their evidence or even if the sets of evidence were far from what the Sandiganbayan perceives to be ideal. It, however, even went into a premature determination of the probative value of COA reports which were yet to be offered and weighed.
I commend the Sandiganbayan for its vigilance in facilitating the pre-trial. The Sandiganbayan can look behind its frustration and remonstration, and console itself with the realization that, at the end of the day, it can only do so much in conducting a perfect pre-trial. Ultimately, how to advance the theory of the case or defense rests on the parties and their counsels.
Without the Sandiganbayan anticipating, the plaintiff perhaps took that conscious and cautious step in proceeding forward and submitting that there was no need, after all, to present documentary and testimonial evidence in light of the judicial admissions in plaintiff’s favor and the prima facie circumstances laid down by jurisprudence, of which the Court can take judicial notice, that could already sufficiently paint the entire cause of action, absent any refuting evidence coming from the defendants.
Judicial admissions are generally considered conclusive to the concerned party. Certain jurisprudence, however, provides the admitting party some leeway to vary or override such admissions, provided the matter was identified as an issue and the admitting party presented contrary evidence during trial. In one case, it was held:
In addition, despite Urdaneta City’s judicial admissions, the trial court is still given leeway to consider other evidence to be presented for said admissions may not necessarily prevail over documentary evidence, e.g., the contracts assailed. A party’s testimony in open court may also override admissions in the Answer.[78][78] (underscoring supplied)
On the premise that the admissions were not conclusive prior to trial, Cojuangco, et al., however, did not go to trial even to attempt to modify their earlier judicial admissions. Hence, their judicial admissions eventually solidified.
To the extent that the stock acquisition was exclusively funded by such loans and credit advances, however, the question cannot be immediately resolved in favor of the plaintiff via a summary judgment.
In the Resolution assailed in G.R. No. 166859, the Sandiganbayan committed no grave abuse of discretion in giving respondents – the party against whom the motion for summary judgment was directed – the benefit of all favorable inferences in viewing the evidence. Any doubt as to the existence of an issue of fact must be resolved against the movant.[79][79]
In G.R. No. 180702, however, the Sandiganbayan erred when it still adopted the same position, despite the conduct or opportunity of trial. Particularly, the Sandiganbayan erred when it still counted on the plaintiff to prove the already admitted fact that such loans and credit advances funded, in whole or in part, the acquisition of subject SMC shares. Notably, respondents failed to negate, vary or override, on grounds allowed by the rules, their standing admission. That such loans and credit advances fully or partially bankrolled the stock purchase can thus no longer be contradicted.
On the exclusivity of the funds, it is not in the plaintiff’s interest to prove the allegation that private funds partly financed the stock purchase. Conversely stated, the plaintiff-Republic may not be expected to prove the negative assertion that no other source of funding was utilized to buy the subject SMC shares. It need not go forward to prove that respondents did not use private funds. That the stock purchase was not exclusively funded by such loans and credit advances is a matter of defense on the part of respondents, upon which case the burden of evidence shifts.[80][80]
Herrera v. Court of Appeals[81][81] teaches that it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to adduce positive evidence to support a negative averment (i.e., acquired without using private funds) the truth of which is fairly indicated by established circumstances and which, if untrue, could readily be disproved by the production of documents or other evidence probably within the defendant’s possession or control.
Even assuming arguendo that “without using private funds” is elemental to the cause of action of the plaintiff who must bear the burden of proof, Philippine Savings Bank v. Geronimo[82][82] instructs that “negative allegations need not be proved even if essential to one’s cause of action or defense if they constitute a denial of the existence of a document the custody of which belongs to the other party.”[83][83]
This category of relevant facts that need not be proven by evidence is identified as “facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party.”[84][84]
Cojuangco, et al. could have simply presented in evidence documents under their custody, if any, to show that other financial resources were used to finance the stock purchase, which may have qualified, on allowable grounds, their earlier judicial admission and accordingly crumbled the plaintiff’s case into fractions.
Whichever way of looking at the matter of “non-usage or usage of private funds” – either as a “negative averment” on the part of the Republic or an “affirmative defense” on the part of Cojuangco, et al. – the bottom line remains the same: the burden of evidence that there were other loans that partly funded the purchase of the SMC shares was borne by Cojuangco, et al., failing which is fatal to them.
It bears reiterating that this opportunity for Cojuangco, et al. to (i) disprove the Republic’s negative averment that no private funds were used, or (ii) otherwise prove the defense’s affirmative allegation that private funds or partly private funds were used explains why it was proper to deny the Republic’s motion for summary judgment and go to trial. Cojuangco, et al. opted not to avail of that opportunity. Consequently, the negative averment stands and the affirmative defense fails.
This same blunder was committed by Cojuangco in the case of Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi[85][85] wherein he purposely skipped the presentation of his defense evidence and consequently failed to prove his affirmative allegations. The Court therein rejected Cojuangco’s contention that his allegation that the shares were registered in his name as a nominee of Hans Menzi was not an affirmative defense but a specific denial, as such the allegation need not be proven unless the Republic presents adequate evidence to prove its case.
It is procedurally required for each party in a case to prove his own affirmative allegations by the degree of evidence required by law. In civil cases such as this one, the degree of evidence required of a party in order to support his claim is preponderance of evidence, or that evidence adduced by one party which is more conclusive and credible than that of the other party. It is therefore incumbent upon the plaintiff who is claiming a right to prove his case. Corollarily, the defendant must likewise prove its own allegations to buttress its claim that it is not liable.
The party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. The burden of proof may be on the plaintiff or the defendant. It is on the defendant if he alleges an affirmative defense which is not a denial of an essential ingredient in the plaintiff’s cause of action, but is one which, if established, will be a good defense – i.e., an “avoidance” of the claim.
In the instant case, Cojuangco’s allegations are in the nature of affirmative defenses which should be adequately substantiated. He did not deny that Bulletin shares were registered in his name but alleged that he held these shares not as nominee of Marcos, as the Republic claimed, but as nominee of Menzi. He did not, however, present any evidence to support his claim and, in fact, filed a Manifestation dated July 20, 1999 stating that he “sees no need to present any evidence in his behalf.”[86][86] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the same manner, Cojuangco admitted in the present case that he purchased the SMC shares of stock but averred that he used the proceeds of certain loans to finance the purchase of the SMC shares. This defense by way of avoidance of the plaintiff’s claim could have buttressed the defendants’ claim that not a single peso of public money was used in buying the shares. Cojuangco, however, took a similar route in the present case, despite the myriad of admissions, judicial notices, and prima facie circumstances that, absent any varying evidence, consequently fortified the Republic’s case. Indeed, “in the final analysis, the party upon whom the ultimate burden lies is to be determined by the pleadings, not by who is the plaintiff or the defendant.”[87][87]
After the trial (or the lack thereof despite the trial settings), it became clear that the borrowings from CIIF Oil Mills and UCPB exclusively funded the purchase of the SMC shares.
COCONUT LEVY FUNDS AS PUBLIC FUNDS
For a clear picture of the genesis of the coconut levy funds, the Court recalls the historical narration in the 1989 case of Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) v. Presidential Commission on Good Government,[88][88] viz.:
The COCONUT LEVY FUNDS:
The sequestration of the corporations and the other acts complained of were undertaken by the PCGG preparatory to the filing of suit in the Sandiganbayan against Marcos and his associates for the illicit conversion of the coconut levy funds, purportedly channeled through the COCOFED and the other sequestered businesses, into private pelf. These funds fall into four general classes, viz.: (a) the Coconut Investment Fund created under R.A. 6260 (effective June 19, 1971); (b) the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund created under PD 276 (effective August 20, 1973); (c) the Coconut Industry Development Fund created under PD 582 (effective November 14, 1974); and (d) the Coconut Industry Stabilization Fund created under P.D. 1841 (effective October 2, 1981).
The Coconut Investment Fund (CIF):
The Coconut Investment Fund, or CIF, was put up in 1971 by R.A. 6260 which declared it to be the national policy to accelerate the development of the coconut industry through the provision of adequate medium and long term financing for capital investment in the industry. A levy of P0.55 was imposed on the first domestic sale of every 100 kilograms of copra or equivalent coconut product, fifty centavos (P0.50) of which accrued to the CIF. The Philippine Coconut Administration (or PHILCOA) received three centavos (P0.03) of the five remaining, and the balance was placed “at the disposition of the recognized national association of coconut producers with the largest x x x membership”– which association was declared by PHILCOA to be petitioner COCOFED.
The CIF was to be used exclusively to pay for the Philippine Government’s subscription to the capital stock of the Coconut Investment Company (CIC), a corporation with a capitalization of P100,000,000.00 created by the statute to administer the Fund, as has already been stated, and to invest its capital in financing “agricultural, industrial or other productive (coconut) enterprises” qualified under the terms of the statute to apply for loans with the CIC. The State was to initially subscribe to CIC’s capital stock “for and on behalf of the coconut farmers,” to whom such shares were supposed to be transferred “upon full payment (with the collections on the levy) of the authorized capital stock x x x or upon termination of a ten-year period from the start of the collection of the levy x x, whichever comes first.” The scheme, in short, called for the use of the CIF– funds collected mainly from coconut farmers– to pay for the CIC shares of stock to be subscribed by the Government and held by it until the levy was lifted, whereupon the Government was to “convert” the receipts issued to the farmers (as evidence of payment of the levy) “into shares of stock”– this time in the farmers’ names– in the new, private corporation to be formed by them at such time, conformably with the provisions of the law.
The levy imposed by R.A. 6260 was collected from 1972 to 1982.
The Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF)
P.D. 276 established a second fund on August 20, 1973, barely a year after the creation of the CIF. The decree imposed a “Stabilization Fund Levy” of fifteen pesos (P15.00) on the first sale of every 100 kilograms of copra resecada or equivalent product. The revenues were to be credited to the Coconut [Consumers] Stabilization Fund (CCSF) which was to be used to subsidize the sale of coconut-based products at prices set by the Price Control Council, in order to stabilize the price of edible oil and other coconut oil-based products for the benefit of consumers. The levy was to be collected for only one year. The CCSF however became a permanent fund under PD 414.
The Coconut Industry Development Fund (CIDF):
On November 14, 1974, PD 582 was promulgated setting up yet another “permanent fund x x (this time to) finance the establishment, operation and maintenance of a hybrid coconut seednut farm x x (and the implementation of) a nationwide coconut replanting program” “using precocious high-yielding hybrid seednuts x x to (be) distribute(d), x x free, to coconut farmers.” The fund was denominated the Coconut Industry Development Fund, or the CIDF. Its initial capital of P100 million was to be paid from the CCSF, and in addition to this, the PCA was directed to thereafter remit to the fund “an amount equal to at least twenty centavos (P0.20) per kilogram of copra resecada or its equivalent out of its current collections of the coconut consumers stabilization levy.” The CIDF was assured of continued contribution from the permanent levy in the same amount deemed to be “automatically imposed” in the event of the lifting of the Stabilization Fund Levy.
The Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF)
The various laws relating to the coconut industry were codified in 1976; promulgated on October 21 of that year was PD 961 or the “Coconut Industry Code,” which later came to be known as the “Revised Coconut Industry Code” upon its amendment by PD 1468, effective June 11, 1978. The Code provided for the continued enforcement of the Stabilization Fund Levy imposed by PD 276 and for the use of the CCSF and the CIDF for substantially the same purposes specified by the enactments ordaining their creation.
A new provision was however inserted in the Code, authorizing the use of the balance of the CIDF not needed to finance the replanting program and other authorized projects, for the acquisition of “shares of stock in corporations organized for the purpose of engaging in the establishment and operation of industries, x x commercial activities and other allied business undertakings relating to coconut and other palm oil indust(ries).” From this fund thus created, the Coconut Industry Investment Fund or the CIIF, were purchased the shares of stock in what have come to be known as the “CIIF companies”– the sequestered corporations into which said CIIF (Coconut Industry Investment Fund) was heavily invested after its creation.
The Coconut Industry Stabilization Fund (CISF): (Formerly CCSF)
The collection of the CCSF and the CIDF was suspended for a time in virtue of PD 1699. However, on October 2, 1981, PD 1841 was issued reviving the levies and renaming the CCSF the Coconut Industry Stabilization Fund, or the CISF, to which accrued the new collections. The impost was in the amount of P50.00 for every 100 kilos of copra resecada or equivalent product delivered to exporters and other copra users. The funds collected were to be apportioned among the CIDF, the COCOFED, the PCA, and the “bank acquired for the benefit of the coconut farmers under PD 755” referring to the United Coconut Planters Bank or the UCPB.
The AGENCIES INVOLVED:
As may be observed, three agencies played key roles in the collection, management, investment and use of the coconut levy funds: (a) the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), formerly the Philippine Coconut Administration or the PHILCOA; (b) the COCOFED; and (c) the UCPB. Charged with the duty to “receive and administer the funds provided by law,” the Philippine Coconut Authority or the PCA was created on June 30, 1973 by P.D. 232 to replace and assume the functions of (1) the Philippine Coconut Administration or PHILCOA (which had been established in 1954), (2) the Coconut Coordinating Council (CCC), and (3) the Philippine Coconut Research Institute (PHILCORIN). By virtue of the Decree, the PCA took over the collection of the CIF Levy under RA 6260 in 1973, while subsequent statutes, to wit, PD 276 (in relation to PD 414), PD 582, and PD 1841, empowered it specifically to manage the CCSF, the CIDF, and the CISF, from the time of their creation. Under the laws just mentioned, the PCA, as the government arm that “formulate(s) x x (the) general program of development for the coconut x x and palm oil indust(ries),” is allotted a share in the funds kept in its trust. Its governing board is composed of members coming from the public and private sectors, among them representatives of COCOFED.
The Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. or the COCOFED, as the private national association of coconut producers certified in 1971 by the PHILCOA as having the largest membership among such producers, receives substantial portions of the coconut funds to finance its operating expenses and socio-economic projects. R.A. 6260 entrusted it with the task of maintaining “continuing liaison with the different sectors of the industry, the government and its own mass base.” Its president sits on the governing board of the PCA and on the Philippine Coconut Consumers Stabilization Committee, the agency assisting the PCA in the administration of the CCSF. It is also represented in the Board of Directors of the CIC and of two (2) CIIF companies COCOMARK (the COCOFED Marketing Corporation) and COCOLIFE (the United Coconut Planters’ Life Insurance Co.).
The United Coconut Planters Bank (or the UCPB) is a commercial bank acquired “for the benefit of the coconut farmers“ with the use of the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF) in virtue of P.D. 755, promulgated on July 29, 1975. The Decree authorized the Bank to provide the intended beneficiaries with “readily available credit facilities at preferential rates.” It also authorized the distribution of the Bank’s shares of stock, free, to the coconut farmers; and some 1,405,366 purported recipients have been listed as UCPB stockholders as of April 10, 1986.
The UCPB was thereafter empowered by PD 1468 to “(make) investments for the benefit of the coconut farmers” using that part of the CIDF referred to as the CIIF. Thus were organized the “CIIF companies” subject of the sequestration orders herein assailed. As in the case of the shares of stock in the UCPB, the law provided for the “equitable distribution” to the coconut farmers, free, of the investments made in the CIIF companies. Among the corporations in which the UCPB has come to have substantial shareholdings are the COCOFED Marketing Corporation (COCOMARK), United Coconut Planters’ Life Insurance (COCOLIFE) GRANEX, ILICOCO, Southern Island Oil Mill, Legaspi Oil of Davao City and of Cagayan de Oro City, Anchor Insurance Brokerage, Inc., Southern Luzon Coconut Oil Mills, and San Pablo Oil Manufacturing Co., Inc. Some of these corporations in turn acquired UCPB shares of stock as well as shareholdings in the San Miguel Corporation.[89][89] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The foregoing historical account has settled that UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills owe their existence to the coconut levy funds and the martial law issuances.[90][90] The Court went on in the same case to pronounce:
The utilization and proper management of the coconut levy funds, raised as they were by the State’s police and taxing powers, are certainly the concern of the Government. It cannot be denied that it was the welfare of the entire nation that provided the prime moving factor for the imposition of the levy. It cannot be denied that the coconut industry is one of the major industries supporting the national economy. It is, therefore, the State’s concern to make it a strong and secure source not only of the livelihood of a significant segment of the population but also of export earnings the sustained growth of which is one of the imperatives of economic stability. The coconut levy funds are clearly affected with public interest. Until it is demonstrated satisfactorily that they have legitimately become private funds, they must prima facie and by reason of the circumstances in which they were raised and accumulated be accounted subject to the measures prescribed[.][91][91] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Still in the same case,[92][92] the Court held that “[t]he coconut levy funds being clearly affected with public interest, it follows that corporations formed and organized from those funds, and all assets acquired therefrom, could also be regarded as ‘clearly affected with public interest.’”
In the 2001 case of Republic v. COCOFED,[93][93] the Court even categorically stated that “[t]he coconut levy funds are not only affected with public interest; they are, in fact, prima facie public funds.”
Once more, in the 2007 case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division),[94][94] the Court recapitulated:
Opinions had, for some time, been divided as to the nature and ownership of a fund with public roots but with private fruits, so to speak. The Court, however, veritably wrote finis to both issues in at least seven (7) ill-gotten cases decided prior to the filing of the present petition in 1995, and in several more subsequent cases, notably in Republic v. Cocofed where the Court declared the coconut levy fund as partaking the nature of taxes, hence is not only affected with public interest, but “are in fact prima facie public funds.”
x x x
In Republic v. COCOFED, the Court observed that the lifting of sequestration in coconut levy companies does not relieve the holders of stock in such companies of the obligation of proving how that stock had been legitimately transferred to private ownership. x x x[95][95] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Since the UCPB was acquired by the government using the coconut levy funds,[96][96] and “all assets acquired therefrom” are prima facie public in character, it follows that the coco levy funds remained public in character upon their transfer, pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 755,[97][97] from the Philippine Coconut Authority to the UCPB. The funds remained in the government’s possession throughout the entire transaction.
UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, all of which are coconut levy companies, had financed the purchase by respondents of the subject SMC shares. Undeniably, the subject SMC shares can be inescapably treated as fruits of funds that are prima facie public in character. Have the subject SMC shares, as the by-product of the proceeds of the loan and credit advances, legitimately become private in character?
Given the Court’s pronouncement that coconut levy funds are prima facie public in nature, the holder of shares of stock that trace their roots from such funds must, in light of the immediately-quoted portion of the Court’s decision in the 2007 case of Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), overcome the prima facie presumption or otherwise prove that the shares are legitimately privately owned.
In view of that opportunity that was yet to be availed by respondents during trial, the Sandiganbayan exercised sound discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment by the assailed Resolution in G.R. No. 166859. A court, when confronted with this situation, is justified in not granting a summary judgment. This marked difference provides an alert tab for courts to proceed to trial.
The same posture cannot stand, however, with respect to the Sandiganbayan’s subsequent Decision of November 28, 2007, challenged in G.R. No. 180702, wherein respondents already abstained from presenting countervailing evidence after affording them the chance. In other words, Cojuangco, et al. failed to overcome the prima facie public character of the nature of the SMC shares as fruits of pubic funds.
Burden of proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil cases. The party, whether plaintiff or defendant, who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof to obtain a favorable judgment.[98][98] Upon the plaintiff in a civil case, the burden of proof never parts, though in the course of trial, once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert the plaintiff’s prima facie case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff.[99][99] It is the burden of evidence which shifts from party to party depending upon the exigencies of the case in the course of trial.[100][100]
The term prima facie evidence denotes evidence which, if unexplained or uncontradicted, is sufficient to sustain the proposition it supports or to establish the facts.[101][101] Prima facie means it is “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted.”[102][102]
In fine, plaintiff having shown that the SMC shares came into fruition from coco levy funds that are prima facie public funds, it was incumbent upon respondents to go forward with contradicting evidence. This they did not do.
Respondents merely opted to raise a question of law, the resolution of which the Sandiganbayan erroneously evaded in its Decision. They maintain that the proceeds of the loan belonged to them in view of the nature of a loan, citing Civil Code provisions that a person who receives a loan of money acquires ownership thereof. They explain that the money loaned once granted belongs in ownership to the borrower who has the obligation only to pay back the amount.
Articles 1933 and 1953 of the Civil Code read:
Art. 1933. — By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.
Commodatum is essentially gratuitous.
Simple loan may be gratuitous or with a stipulation to pay interest.
In commodatum the bailor retains the ownership of the thing loaned, while in simple loan, ownership passes to the borrower.
x x x x
Art. 1953. — A person who receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing acquires the ownership thereof, and is bound to pay to the creditor an equal amount of the same kind and quality.
Respondents posit that an implied trust[103][103] wherein the price of the property bought is “paid by another” could not arise since the borrower, in a loan contract involving a fungible object like money, acquires ownership of money.
Respondents’ characterization of the legal complexion of the transaction does not lie.
First, the Sandiganbayan case is not a simple collection case for the return of the very same series of money lent. Second, respondents’ position presupposes that there is nothing illegal, invalid or improper in the grant of the loan. Third, respondents’ position limits the depiction of a trust relationship to only one type.
Executive Order No. 1[104][104] issued on February 28, 1986 states:
x x x x
SECTION 2. The [PCGG] shall be charged with the task of assisting the President in regard to the following matters:
(a) The recovery of all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, subordinates and close associates, whether located in the Philippines or abroad, including the takeover or sequestration of all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during his administration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of their public office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections or relationship. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Executive Order No. 2[105][105] issued on March 12, 1986 states:
x x x x
WHEREAS, the Government of the Philippines is in possession of evidence showing that there are assets and properties purportedly pertaining to former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and/or his wife, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents or nominees which had been or were acquired by them directly or indirectly, through or as a result of the improper or illegal use of funds or properties owned by the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of their office, authority, influence, connections or relationship, resulting in their unjust enrichment and causing grave damage and prejudice to the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines;
x x x x
NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, hereby;
x x x x
(4) Prohibit former President Ferdinand Marcos and/or his wife, Imelda Romualdez Marcos, their close relatives, subordinates, business associates, dummies, agents, or nominees from transferring, conveying, encumbering, concealing or dissipating said assets or properties in the Philippines and abroad, pending the outcome of appropriate proceedings in the Philippines to determine whether any such assets or properties were acquired by them through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of their official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense and to the grave damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
E.O. No. 2 describes ill-gotten assets as, inter alia, shares of stock acquired through or as a result of the improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds or properties owned by the Government or its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions.
The scope of inquiry on ill-gotten shares of stock is not restricted to those that were personally “acquired through” public funds in the form of a simple direct purchase which, crude and unsophisticated it may seem, is illegal per se. Having conceivably taken into account the ingenious and “organized pillage”[106][106] perpetrated by the Marcos regime, E.O. No. 2 saw it fit to include those that were “acquired as a result of the improper or illegal use of” public funds. Notably, E.O. No. 2 covers acquisitions resulting not only from illegal use but also from improper use of public funds or properties, not to mention conversion thereof.
That the law includes funds from government banks and financial institutions bolsters this conclusion and readily negates respondents’ vivid illustrations of bank loan transactions.
Respondents’ position only attempts to explain that the subject SMC shares were not directly acquired through public funds, but it does not negate the other modes of acquisition (i.e., acquired as a result of the improper or illegal use or conversion of public funds) which could take on several forms.
“Ill-gotten wealth” is hereby defined as any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any of the following means or similar schemes:
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
(2) Through the receipt, directly or indirectly, of any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the official concerned.
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations;
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(5) Through the establishment of agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combination and/or by the issuance, promulgation and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; and
(6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship or influence for personal gain or benefit.[107][107] (underscoring supplied)
The act of respondents in employing the instrumentality of a loan transaction and exploiting the legal import thereof does not thus save the day for them, so to speak. The defense’s thesis shatters in the context of ill-gotten wealth cases.
The majority holds that ill-gotten wealth must be acquired or taken through “illegal means” only. This limited restatement of the elements and modes of acquiring ill-gotten wealth goes against the expanded and developed nature and dynamics of ill-gotten wealth as legally defined above and which was quoted and applied in the Hans Menzi case.
Interestingly, the majority cites the same basic document of Executive Order No. 2 (March 12, 1986) which, in fact, expressly recognizes that acquisitions of ill-gotten wealth may result from either an illegal or improper use or conversion of public funds.
The Court, nonetheless, discusses in no uncertain terms, the series of legal provisions and rules vis-à-vis the acts and omissions of Cojuangco, et al. in concluding the presence of illegal means of acquisition, in the succeeding portions.
BREACH OF TRUST AND FIDUCIARY DUTY
In determining whether Cojuangco betrayed public trust, took undue advantage of authority, or violated his fiduciary duty as a director or officer, the question as to whether he held such positions in the entities involved must first be settled.
It bears noting and reiterating that Cojuangco admitted in his Answer to the Third Amended Complaint that he held, inter alia, the positions of President and Member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB as well as Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA):
2.01 Herein defendant admits paragraph 4 only insofar as it alleges the following:
(a) That herein defendant has held the following positions in government: Governor of Tarlac, Congressman of the then First District of Tarlac, Ambassador-at-Large, Lieutenant Colonel in the Philippine Air Force and Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority;
(b) That he held the following positions in private corporations: Member of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc.; President and member of the Board of Directors of the United Coconut Planters Bank, United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corporation, and United Coconut Chemicals, Inc.; Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of San Miguel Corporation; x x x[108][108] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
What he disputes, however, is whether he had served as an officer or a member of the governing bodies of the PCA and UCPB at the time the funds used to purchase the SMC shares were obtained in 1983. The Sandiganbayan found this matter as a disputed fact.[109][109]
Cojuangco’s asseverations and the Sandiganbayan’s stance ignore the glaring admissions in Cojuangco’s Answer.
The Complaint made the following allegation:
12. Defendant Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., served as a public officer during the Marcos Administration. During the period of his incumbency as a public officer, he acquired assets, funds, and other property grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property.[110][110] (emphasis supplied),
which underscored portion was deemed admitted by Cojuangco when he did not specifically deny it in his Answer, viz:
5.00. Herein defendant denies paragraph 12 of the complaint, the truth being that whatever assets he has were acquired lawfully and are not “grossly and manifestly disproportionate to his salaries, lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property”.[111][111] (emphasis supplied)
Clearly, Cojuangco’s specific denial concerns only the matter of the acquisition of his assets. Without specifically denying the matter of his having served “as a public officer during the Marcos Administration,” the same is deemed admitted.[112][112]
The Court takes judicial notice of the political history that 1983 (when the subject SMC shares were acquired) formed part of the Marcos Administration. Cojuangco, not having specifically denied or even qualifiedly admitted his tenure as public officer during the Marcos Administration vis-à-vis his earlier admissions on the specific public offices or directorships he had held, the ineluctable conclusion is that he held the positions of President and Member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB and of Director of the PCA during the Marcos Administration or, at the very least, in 1983.
The argument that Cojuangco was not a subordinate or close associate of the Marcoses is the biggest joke to hit the century. Aside from the cited offices or positions of power over coconut levy funds, Cojuangco admitted in Paragraph 3.01 of his Answer that on February 25, 1986, Cojuangco left the Philippines with former President Ferdinand Marcos.
Clearly, the intimate relationship between Cojuangco and Marcos equates or exceeds that of a family member or cabinet member, since not all of Marcos’s relatives or high government ministers went with him in exile on that fateful date. If this will not prove the more than close association between Cojuangco and Marcos, the Court does not know what will.
A SURVEY OF THE PERTINENT LAWS RELATIVE TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PCA AND UCPB IS IN ORDER.
Republic Act No. 1145[113][113] provided the initial manner of appointment and tenure of members of the governing board of the Philippine Coconut Administration (Philcoa), the precursor of present-day PCA, to wit:
CHAPTER III
Governing Body
Section 5. Composition and appointment— All corporate powers of the PHILCOA shall be vested in, and exercised by a Board of Administrators consisting of five members to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, three of whom shall be coconut planters; Provided, That no person appointed to this board may serve as director or more than two government or semi-government corporations. The President shall designate from among the members of the Board its Chairman.
Section 6. Tenure and compensation— The members of the Board shall serve as designated by the President of the Philippines in their respective appointments for a term of four years, but any person to fill a vacancy shall serve only for the unexpired term of the member whom he succeeds. The Chairman shall receive a salary of twelve thousand pesos per annum and each member of per diem of twenty-five pesos for every meeting actually attended: Provided, That no member shall earn more than one hundred pesos a month in per diems; Provided, further, that if the member is a public official, he shall not be entitled to any per diem. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Almost 20 years later or on June 30, 1973, President Marcos issued P.D. No. 232 which created the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) by abolishing the Philcoa, the Coconut Coordinating Council, and the Philippine Coconut Research Institute, viz.:
Section 3. Powers and Functions. To carry out the purposes and objectives mentioned in the preceding section, the Authority, through its Board as hereinafter constituted, is hereby vested with the following powers, in addition to those transferred to it under Section 6 of this Decree:
a. To formulate and adopt a general program of development for the coconut and other palm oils industry;
x x x
d. To supervise, coordinate and evaluate the activities of all agencies charged with the implementation of the various aspects of industry development, and to allocate and/or coordinate the release of public funds in accordance with approved development programs and projects;
x x x
f. To receive and administer funds provided by law; to draw, with the approval of the President, funds from existing appropriations as may be necessary in support of its program, and to accept donations, grants, gifts and assistance of all kinds from international and local private foundations, associations or entities, and to administer the same in accordance with the instructions or directions of the donor or, in default thereof, in the manner it may in its direction determine;
g. To borrow the necessary funds from local and international financing institutions, and to issue bonds and other instruments of indebtedness, subject to existing rules and regulations of the Central Bank, for the purpose of financing programs and projects deemed vital and necessary for the early attainment of its goals and objectives;
h. To formulate and recommend for adoption credit policies affecting production, marketing and processing of coconut and other palm oils;
x x x
j. To enter into, make and execute contracts of any kind as may be necessary or incidental to the attainment of its purposes and, generally, to exercise all the powers necessary to achieve the purposes and objectives for which it is organized.
Section 4. Governing Board. The Authority shall be governed by a Board of eleven members, who shall meet as often as necessary, composed of:
a. Three representatives at-large of the private sector, to be appointed by the President, who shall have recognized competence in the many facets of the industry and be leaders of the industry acknowledged by both the government and private sector members of the coconut community;
b. The Chairman, National Science Development Board;
c. The Undersecretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources;
d. The Undersecretary of Trade;
e. The President, Philippine Coconut Producers Federation;
f. The Chairman, United Coconut Associations of the Philippines;
g. The Chairman of the Board, Coconut Investment Company;
h. The Director, Bureau of Plant Industry;
i. The Director, Bureau of Agricultural Extension.
A Chairman shall be designated by the President from the members of the Board. The Board shall elect a Vice-Chairman who shall assume the functions of the Chairman, whenever the latter is absent or incapacitated, and an Executive Committee of five from among its members, to which it may delegate such powers as it deems fit. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Then, barely five years later, Pres. Marcos issued on June 11, 1978 P.D. No. 1468,[114][114] which provided:
x x x x
Section 4. Governing Board. — The corporate powers and duties of the Authority shall be vested in and exercised by Board of seven (7) members to be appointed by the President, as follows:
a) Two representatives of the Government, one of whom shall be designated by the President as Chairman and the other as Vice-Chairman;
b) Three members recommended by the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation;
c) One member recommended by the United Coconut Association of the Philippines;
d) One member recommended by the owner and operator of the hybrid coconut seednut farm herein authorized to be established.
The Board shall have the following additional powers and duties:
x x x x
c) To disburse the proceeds of the levies for the purposes herein authorized;
x x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
From these amendments to the PCA charter, two things remain crystal clear – first, that the members of PCA Board were to be appointed by the President either for a given term or, at the very least, at his pleasure as the appointing authority; and second, that the members of the PCA Board had been given vast authority in managing and disbursing the coconut levy funds, which includes the corporations formed and organized therefrom and all assets acquired therefrom, such as the CIIF Ill Mills.
Since appointment as member of the PCA Board is made by the President, the Court also takes judicial notice of Cojuangco’s appointment by then President Marcos as PCA Director, it being an official act of the executive department of the Philippines.[115][115] A sampling of available public records in the form of PCA annual reports[116][116] confirms that Cojuangco was a member of the governing board of the PCA in the early 1980s.
With respect to the UCPB, Cojuangco’s description of it as a “private corporation” does not bind the Court and cannot lend support to the proposition that the period during which he was the UCPB President and Director is not within the scope of his subsequent admission as a “public officer during the Marcos Administration.”
UCPB was a public corporation during the period material to the complaint.
Paragraph 13, Section 2 of the Administrative Code of 1987[117][117] provides:
(13) Government-owned or controlled corporation refers to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation, vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock: Provided, That government-owned or controlled corporations may be further categorized by the Department of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and the Commission on Audit for purposes of the exercise and discharge of their respective powers, functions and responsibilities with respect to such corporations. (underscoring supplied)
Even under the 1973 Constitution, this framework was established with the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 2029[118][118] which recognized the ruling that “under the [1973] Constitution, government-owned or controlled corporations include those created by special law as well as those through the Corporation Code[.]”[119][119] Section 2 of P.D. No. 2029 reads:
Section 2. Definition. A government-owned or controlled corporation is a stock or a non-stock corporation, whether performing governmental or proprietary functions, which is directly chartered by a special law or if organized under the general corporation law is owned or controlled by the government directly, or indirectly through a parent corporation or subsidiary corporation, to the extent of at least a majority of its outstanding capital stock or of its outstanding voting capital stock;
Provided, that a corporation organized under the general corporation law under private ownership at least a majority of the shares of stock of which were conveyed to a government financial institution, whether by a foreclosure or otherwise, or a subsidiary corporation of a government corporation organized exclusively to own and manage, or lease, or operate specific physical assets acquired by a government financial institution in satisfaction of debts incurred therewith, and which in any case by enunciated policy of the government is required to be disposed of to private ownership within a specified period of time, shall not be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation before such disposition and even if the ownership or control thereof is subsequently transferred to another government-owned or controlled corporation;
Provided, further, that a corporation created by special law which is explicitly intended under that law for ultimate transfer to private ownership under certain specified conditions shall be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation, until it is transferred to private ownership; and
Provided, finally, that a corporation that is authorized to be established by special law, but which is still required under that law to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to acquire a juridical personality, shall not on the basis of the special law alone be considered a government-owned or controlled corporation. (underscoring supplied)
Under such conceptual framework, UCPB suited the classification of a government-owned and controlled corporation. UCPB, then known as the First United Bank, was acquired by the government in 1975 by virtue of P.D. No. 755 and the “Agreement for the Acquisition of a Commercial Bank for the benefit of the Coconut Farmers” dated May 25, 1975 entered into by the PCA and Cojuangco using coco levy funds to serve as the repository of the coco levy funds and to administer said public funds. Under said Agreement, the PCA bought 72.2% of the UCPB from Cojuangco who retained for himself 7.2% as “payment for management services.” On this score alone, Cojuangco indeed exercised management authority from 1975 to 1980 and from 1981 to 1985.
Given the extent of government ownership of its shares of stock, the public nature of the funds in its control, the purpose for which it was acquired, and the manner of its acquisition, UCPB was thus a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). Cojuangco, as then President and Member of the Board of Directors of UCPB, was thus, indeed, a public officer during the Marcos Administration.
In light of the admissions as discussed, it was no longer incumbent upon the Republic to prove that Cojuangco was an officer and member of the governing boards of these bodies at that time. Cojuangco could, of course, it bears reiteration, have adduced evidence to contradict, on grounds allowed by the rules, his admissions in order to otherwise show that he was not connected to these entities during the Marcos regime. But he did not.
It having been established that Cojuangco was a Director of PCA, a government entity, and a President and Director of UCPB, a GOCC, his act of acquiring loans and credit advances from UCPB and the CIIF Oil Mills in order to purchase the subject SMC shares through the various Cojuangco companies was in violation of his fiduciary duty as director.
“Fiduciary duty” has been defined as “a duty to act for someone else’s benefit, while subordinating one’s personal interests to that of the other person. It is the highest standard of duty implied by law.[120][120] “Fiduciary” connotes a very broad term embracing both technical relations and those informal relations which exist wherever one person trusts in or relies upon another; one founded on trust or confidence reposed by one person in the integrity and fidelity of another. Such relationship arises whenever confidence is reposed on one side, and domination and influence result on the other; the relation can be legal, social, domestic, or merely personal.[121][121] It is a relation subsisting between two persons in regard to a business, contract, or piece of property, or in regard to the general business or estate of one of them, of such a character that each must repose trust and confidence in the other and must exercise a corresponding degree of fairness and good faith. Out of such a relation, the law raises the rule that neither party may exert influence or pressure upon the other, take selfish advantage of his trust, or deal with the subject-matter of the trust in such a way as to benefit himself or prejudice the other except in the exercise of the utmost good faith and with the full knowledge and consent of that other, business shrewdness, hard bargaining, and astuteness to take advantage of the forgetfulness or negligence of another being totally prohibited as between persons standing in such a relation to each other.[122][122]
The Court had, in Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission,[123][123] the occasion to explain at length such fiduciary duty of a director of a corporation:
Although in the strict and technical sense, directors of a private corporation are not regarded as trustees, there cannot be any doubt that their character is that of a fiduciary insofar as the corporation and the stockholders as a body are concerned. As agents entrusted with the management of the corporation for the collective benefit of the stockholders, “they occupy a fiduciary relation, and in this sense the relation is one of trust.” “The ordinary trust relationship of directors of a corporation and stockholders”, according to Ashaman v. Miller, “is not a matter of statutory or technical law. It springs from the fact that directors have the control and guidance of corporate affairs and property and hence of the property interests of the stockholders. Equity recognizes that stockholders are the proprietors of the corporate interests and are ultimately the only beneficiaries thereof * * *.
Justice Douglas, in Pepper v. Litton, emphatically restated the standard of fiduciary obligation of the directors of corporations, thus:
A director is a fiduciary. … Their powers are powers in trust. … He who is in such fiduciary position cannot serve himself first and his cestuis second. … He cannot manipulate the affairs of his corporation to their detriment and in disregard of the standards of common decency. He cannot by the intervention of a corporate entity violate the ancient precept against serving two masters … He cannot utilize his inside information and strategic position for his own preferment. He cannot violate rules of fair play by doing indirectly through the corporation what he could not do so directly. He cannot use his power for his personal advantage and to the detriment of the stockholders and creditors no matter how absolute in terms that power may be and no matter how meticulous he is to satisfy technical requirements. For that power is at all times subject to the equitable limitation that it may not be exercised for the aggrandizement, preference or advantage of the fiduciary to the exclusion or detriment of the cestuis.
And in Cross v. West Virginia Cent, & P. R. R. Co., it was said:
. . . A person cannot serve two hostile and adverse masters, without detriment to one of them. A judge cannot be impartial if personally interested in the cause. No more can a director. Human nature is too weak for this. Take whatever statute provision you please giving power to stockholders to choose directors, and in none will you find any express prohibition against a discretion to select directors having the company’s interest at heart, and it would simply be going far to deny by mere implication the existence of such a salutary power.[124][124] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Since at the time Cojuangco and the Cojuangco companies obtained loans from UCPB/CIIF Oil Mills to purchase SMC shares, Cojuangco was concurrently President and/or Director of the UCPB and PCA, he is considered to have had a fiduciary duty towards these entities, especially with respect to UCPB which, at that time, was a GOCC, and the PCA, the government entity tasked to oversee the entire coconut industry including the coco levy fund.
Furthermore, in view of the public nature of the funds involved, Cojuangco became a fiduciary not only of the entities involved but also of the public funds. As stated in Gokongwei, a director cannot serve himself first and his cestuis (the corporations and the public) second or use his power as such director or officer for his personal advantage or preference. Since the avowed purpose for which UCPB was acquired by the government was to administer the coco levy funds to provide them with “readily available credit facilities at preferential rates,” Cojuangco, in buying the SMC shares through the loans he obtained from UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills for his own benefit, violated his fiduciary obligations by self-dealing, an act proscribed under the Corporation Code, Sections 31 and 34 of which read:
Sec. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. – Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons.
When a director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquires, in violation of his duty, any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in him in confidence, as to which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own behalf, he shall be liable as a trustee for the corporation and must account for the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the corporation.
x x x x
Sec. 34. Disloyalty of a director. – Where a director, by virtue of his office, acquires for himself a business opportunity which should belong to the corporation, thereby obtaining profits to the prejudice of such corporation, he must account to the latter for all such profits by refunding the same, unless his act has been ratified by a vote of the stockholders owning or representing at least two-thirds (2/3) of the outstanding capital stock. This provision shall be applicable, notwithstanding the fact that the director risked his own funds in the venture. (emphasis supplied)
Indeed, given that SMC may be considered a profitable business and, therefore, no prejudice in terms of loss might have been suffered by UCPB, CIIF Oil Mills or the coconut farmers for whom Cojuangco was deemed to hold the funds in trust, still his acquisition of the SMC shares amounted to his depriving the coconut farmers of a business opportunity which rightfully belonged to them, i.e., access to the coco levy funds, and his gaining profits therefrom to the detriment of the intended beneficiaries. By no stretch of one’s imagination can it be assumed that the purchase of SMC shares directly or even indirectly redounded to the benefit of the coconut farmers. Under Section 9 of P.D. No. 961, what UCPB was, at most, authorized to invest in were shares of stocks in corporations engaged in businesses related to the coconut and palm oil industry of which SMC, then primarily engaged in the food and beverage industries, may not be considered covered. The provision adverted to reads:
Section 9. Investments For the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the bank acquired for the benefit of the coconut farmers under P.D. 755 is hereby given full power and authority to make investments in the form of shares of stock in corporations organized for the purpose of engaging in the establishment and the operation of industries and commercial activities and other allied business undertakings relating to the coconut and other palm oils industry in all its aspects and the establishment of a research into the commercial and industrial uses of coconut and other palm oil industry. For that purpose, the Authority shall, from time to time, ascertain how much of the collections of the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund and/or the Coconut Industry Development Fund is not required to finance the replanting program and other purposes herein authorized and such ascertained surplus shall be utilized by the bank for the investments herein authorized. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
But even assuming arguendo that UCPB’s investing in SMC shares would have been allowed under the above provision, still, such investments could only have been made for and in behalf of the coconut farmers, and NOT for and in behalf of a single individual or Cojuangco alone.
As President and Director of UCPB, Cojuangco was also violating Section 83 of Republic Act No. 337 of the General Banking Law, as amended by P.D. No. 1795, the law in force at that time which prohibited directors and/or officers of a banking institution from either directly or indirectly borrowing any of the deposits of funds of such banks except with the written approval of all directors of the bank. Said section states:
Sec. 83. No director or officer of any banking institution shall, either directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of other, borrow any of the deposits of funds of such banks, nor shall he become a guarantor, indorser, or surety for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor for money borrowed from the bank or loaned by it, except with the written approval of the majority of the directors of the bank, excluding the director concerned. Any such approval shall be entered upon the records of the corporation and a copy of such entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the Superintendent of Banks. The office of any director or officer of a bank who violates the provisions of this section shall immediately become vacant and the director or officer shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than ten years and by a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than ten thousand pesos.
The Monetary Board may regulate the amount of credit accommodations that may be extended, directly or indirectly, by banking institutions to their directors, officers, or stockholders. However, the outstanding credit accommodations which a bank may extend to each of its stockholders owning two per cent (2%) or more of the subscribed capital stock, its directors, or its officers, shall be limited to an amount equivalent to the respective outstanding deposits and book value of the paid-in capital contribution in the bank: Provided, however, That loans and advances to officers in the form of fringe benefits granted in accordance with rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Monetary Board shall not be subject to the preceding limitation. [125][125] (emphasis supplied)
Cojuangco and the Cojuangco companies having admitted in their joint Pre-Trial Brief that the SMC shares were actually purchased with proceeds from loans and credit advances from UCPB and the CIIF Oil Mills, and having foregone the opportunity during trial to show that a written authority from the UCPB’s Board of Directors was secured before contracting said loans, ineluctably, Cojuangco violated the old banking law. That President Marcos issued Letter of Instructions (LOI) No. 926 (September 3, 1979) that paved the way for the acquisition of UCPB as the bank that would administer the lending of coco levy funds and which, in effect, exempted borrowings from the UCPB from the usual loan restrictions, is of no moment. Section 4 of LOI No. 926 provides:
Sec. 4. Financial Borrowings – All financial borrowings of the private corporation authorized to be organized as well as any Participating Mill to finance their respective capital expenditures including purchase of spare parts and inventories shall be expeditiously and promptly approved, and such borrowings are hereby declared exempt from restrictions/limitations: on simple borrower’s limitations; and on loans to corporations with interlocking directors, officers, stockholders, related interests and subsidiaries and affiliates, it being understood that such lendings are in effect made to the coconut industry as a whole and not to any particular individual or entity. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Clearly, the exemption granted in LOI No. 926 only extended to corporate borrowings, not to individual borrowings.
UNDISPUTED FACTS[126][126] culled by the Sandiganbayan, to which Cojuangco and Cojuangco companies did not object, yield to the following conclusions: (i) It was Cojuangco alone who obtained the loans; (ii) it was Cojuangco alone who purchased or acquired the subject SMC shares; and (iii) the subject SMC shares were registered, however, not only in the name of Cojuangco but also in the name of the Cojuangco companies.
In his Answer, Cojuangco admits that he is the owner of the SMC shares registered in the names of Primavera Farms, Inc., Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc., and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc., wherein 99.6% of the corporations’ shares were held in trust by Atty. Jose C. Concepcion under three separate “Declarations of Trust and Assignment of Subscription.” Likewise admitted therein is the fact that Atty. Concepcion and other registered stockholders of the three Cojuangco companies executed Voting Trust Agreements in favor of Cojuangco representing almost half[127][127] of the total subject SMC shares. Another admitted fact is that the other Cojuangco companies were incorporated in Cojuangco’s behalf by the ACCRA Law Office.[128][128]
That the other purportedly registered stockholders of the Cojuangco companies, like Atty. Concepcion, did not stake a claim over the SMC shares bears noting. That they were not alerted thereby enfeebles any claim of ownership.[129][129]
These circumstances bolster the Sandiganbayan’s judicial notice of case law [Undisputed Facts, Item No. 5] on the presence of indications that the Cojuangco companies are “dummies” or manipulated instruments or repositories of wealth.[130][130] And whatever machinations of incorporation and instrumentalities of declarations were employed, the inescapable conclusion remains that the subject SMC shares were funneled into the Cojuangco companies. Hence, per case law and as confirmed by the admissions and the records of the proceedings, the Cojuangco companies are ‘dummies’ or manipulated instruments.
Since Cojuangco admitted having acquired the loans for himself, albeit through various dummy corporations, and absent written authority from UCPB’s then Board of Directors, it becomes evident that he violated the restrictions on bank exposure under the old banking law. The issuance of the LOI by then President Marcos, rather than exempting from the restrictions imposed on loans being acquired by officers and directors of banks, only underscored the obvious: that Cojuangco was a close ally of Marcos and gained undue advantage due to such close relationship; and that UCPB was primarily acquired to siphon off the coco levy funds.
Significantly, as the above-quoted Section 4 of LOI No. 926 itself provides, the borrowings or loans were intended “in effect” for the benefit of the coconut industry and the coconut farmers as a whole and NOT for the benefit of any particular individual or entity.
IN SUM, in acquiring the loans for himself while he was an officer of UCPB, Cojuangco VIOLATED not only HIS FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION under the Corporation Code and the PROHIBITION ON SELF-DEALING under the banking law, but also the PROVISION IN THE LOI ON HOW THE LOANS ARE TO BE ADMINISTERED. The avowed legal intention or policy behind the LOI in fact goes against factual reality, as even the financial borrowings were supposedly intended “to finance their [Participating Mills’] capital expenditures.”
It having been established that Cojuangco engaged in prohibited conflict-of-interest transactions by buying the SMC shares using coco levy funds being administered by the UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills for his own benefit, it follows that a constructive trust was formed in favor of the coconut farmers who should have benefited from such funds.
The Civil Code provides:
Art. 1455. When any trustee, guardian, or other person holding a fiduciary relationship uses trust funds for the purchase of property and causes the conveyance to be made to him or to a third person, a trust is established by operation of law in favor of the person to whom the funds belong. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A constructive trust is “a right of property, real or personal, held by one party for the benefit of another; that there is a fiduciary relation between a trustee and a cestui que trust as regards certain property, real, personal, money or choses in action.”[131][131] That under Article 1455 there must be a breach of fiduciary relation and profit or gain resulting therefrom in order for a constructive trust to be created in favor of that legally entitled to it, Huang v. Court of Appeals[132][132] underscores:
A constructive trust is imposed where a person holding title to property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he were permitted to retain it. The duty to convey the property arises because it was acquired through fraud, duress, or abuse of confidence, undue influence or mistake or breach of fiduciary duty or through the wrongful disposition of another’s property.[133][133] (emphasis supplied)
Fraud in this kind of trust in fact need not even be present. The landmark case of Severino v. Severino[134][134] enlightens:
A receiver, trustee, attorney, agent, or any other person occupying fiduciary relations respecting property or persons, is utterly disabled from acquiring for his own benefit the property committed to his custody for management. This rule is entirely independent of the fact whether any fraud has intervened. No fraud in fact need be shown, and no excuse will be heard from the trustee. It is to avoid the necessity of any such inquiry that the rule takes so general a form. The rule stands on the moral obligation to refrain from placing one’s self in positions which ordinarily excite conflicts between self-interest and integrity. It seeks to remove the temptation that might arise out of such a relation to serve one’s self-interest at the expense of one’s integrity and duty to another, by making it impossible to profit by yielding to temptation. It applies universally to all who come within its principle. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the present case, whether Cojuangco committed fraud is no longer material, what is material and must be established being the existence of the fiduciary relation and the use of such position and the attendant abuse of the confidence reposed in him by virtue of that position which results in the constructive trust.
Even assuming arguendo that fraud is material, the rule on the burden of proof of fraud, as Justice Bersamin insists, does not apply in the present case. Authorities on evidence cite the existence of a fiduciary relation as an exception:
The law, in the absence of the existence of any fiduciary relation, never presumes fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith; on the contrary, the presumption is in favor of good faith and honesty until the contrary appears x x x However, when a fiduciary relation exists between the parties to a transaction, the burden of proof of its fairness is upon the fiduciary. He must show that there was no abuse of confidence, that he has acted in good faith, and the act by which he is benefited was the free, voluntary, and independent act of the other party, done with full knowledge of its purpose and effect. Examples of such relationships may be seen in the case of husband and wife, attorney and client, directors of a corporation and the corporation, or any other relationship of an intimate and fiduciary character. A fiduciary seeking to profit by a transaction with the one who confided in him has the burden of showing that he communicated to the other not only the fact of his interest in the transaction, but all information he had which it was important for the other to know in order to enable him to judge the value of the property. The formal creation of a fiduciary relationship is not essential to the application of this rule. The principles apply to all cases in which confidence is reposed by one party in another, and the trust or confidence is accepted under circumstances which show that it was founded on intimate, personal, and business relations existing between the parties, which give the one advantage or superiority over the other, and impose the burden of proving that the transaction was fair and just on the person acquiring the benefit.[135][135] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Since Cojuangco was a fiduciary, the burden of evidence on the fairness of the questionable transactions was shifted to him. He failed to discharge this burden.
In other words, contrary to the view of the majority, it was not incumbent upon the Republic to adduce evidence on the particular details of the loans and credit advances for it was Cojuangco’s burden to establish the regularity of these transactions. I am not “second-guessing,” as the majority points out, for I am justified to deem the irregularity or illegality thereof as established after Cojuangco refused to discharge his burden. The intentional concealment of facts as to render secretive the assailed loan transactions entered into by a fiduciary must be, as enunciated by the above-cited rule, taken against Cojuangco, he being the fiduciary.
VIOLATION OF PENAL LAWS
Aside from the violating the above-enumerated laws in purchasing the SMC shares, Cojuangco also violated penal laws in his capacity as a public officer.[136][136]
First, Section 3(i) of Republic Act No. 3019 prohibits a public officer from becoming interested for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Second, Article 216[137][137] of the Revised Penal Code prohibits public officers from directly or indirectly, becoming interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
Cojuangco’s participation in the performance of public functions in a branch of the government was through his appointment by then President Marcos to the identified positions. Clearly, whether by the definition under R.A. 3019 or the Revised Penal Code, Cojuangco is deemed to be a public officer.
Cojuangco, in buying the SMC shares out of loan proceeds he obtained from UCPB and CIIF Oil Mills, of which he was an officer, violated the cited provision of the Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, akin to the act of self-dealing that is prohibited under Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code. Further, under the last paragraph of Section 3(i), there is the presumption of interest for personal gain.[138][138] Consequently, Cojuangco ought to have proven that he did not gain personally from the loan transactions which involved UCPB, a GOCC, and the PCA, a government body.
With respect to Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code, Cojuangco had a hand in how the funds were to be utilized and in choosing the recipients of the loans and credit advances. For him to purchase SMC shares with proceeds from loans sourced from the coconut levy funds was a clear violation of Article 216. What is proscribed is the mere possession of the prohibited interest. It does not matter whether he actually approved the transaction or actually intervened in the contract or business. Moreover, proof that actual fraud was committed against the government is not required, for the act is punished because of the possibility that fraud may be committed or that the officer may place his personal interest above that of the government.[139][139]
The foregoing determinations notwithstanding, the majority posits that the Republic still needed to adduce competent evidence to substantiate the elemental allegations of the complaint. He declares that Cojuangco, et al. “did not admit that the acquisition of the Cojuangco block of SMC shares had been illegal, or made with public funds.”[140][140] The phraseology, however, is inaccurate in two respects. First, the statement is tagged with an erroneous predicate, for the premise draws one to interject that Cojuangco, et al. could not admit a conclusion of law. Second, the statement fails to squarely consider all relevant facts that need not be proven by evidence which the Court determined in arriving at its legal conclusion.
The categories of facts that need not be proven by evidence were enumerated by this Court in one case that expounded on Section 1 of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
Burden of proof. – Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
Obviously, the burden of proof is, in the first instance, with the plaintiff who initiated the action. But in the final analysis, the party upon whom the ultimate burden lies is to be determined by the pleadings, not by who is the plaintiff or the defendant. The test for determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain, and based on the result of an inquiry, which party would be successful if he offers no evidence.
In ordinary civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied by the defendant, and the defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his case where he sets up a new matter. All facts in issue and relevant facts must, as a general rule, be proven by evidence except the following:
(1) Allegations contained in the complaint or answer immaterial to the issues.
(2) Facts which are admitted or which are not denied in the answer, provided they have been sufficiently alleged.
(3) Those which are the subject of an agreed statement of facts between the parties; as well as those admitted by the party in the course of the proceedings in the same case.
(4) Facts which are the subject of judicial notice.
(5) Facts which are legally presumed.
(6) Facts peculiarly within the knowledge of the opposite party.
The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created thereby which if no proof to the contrary is offered will prevail; it does not shift the burden of proof.[141][141] (italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
BY WAY OF SUMMATION, the Court enumerates the relevant facts that need not be proven by evidence, as gathered from the foregoing discussion which is anchored on the immediately-cited listing of legal bases for considering these facts as established, in order to rebut the argument that there is no evidence at all to support the Republic’s cause of action.
1. The identity of the subject SMC shares, referring to a total of 27,198,545 shares of stocks (at the time of sequestration in 1989) representing approximately 20% of the outstanding shares.
2. The sale of the subject SMC shares was entered into in 1983.
3. The sellers are Ayala Corporation and other corporations and individuals.
4. The lone buyer was Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.
5. In purchasing the SMC shares, Cojuangco used proceeds of loans
6. It was Cojuangco alone who obtained the loans.
7. The proceeds of loans refer to borrowings from CIIF Oil Mills and UCPB.
8. No private funds were shown to have been used to purchase the SMC shares.
9. The coconut levy funds are not only clearly affected with public interest but also, in fact, prima facie public funds. The same holds true with corporations formed and organized from coconut levy funds and all assets acquired therefrom, they being fruits of funds with public roots.
10. Absent any contrary evidence, the subject SMC shares remained public in character.
11. Circumstances indicate that the Cojuangco companies are ‘dummies’ or manipulated instruments.
12. The SMC shares have been registered not only in Cojuangco’s name but also in the name of defendant Cojuangco Companies.
13. Cojuangco is the owner of the SMC shares registered in the names of Primavera Farms, Inc., Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc., and Meadowlark Plantations, Inc., wherein 99.6% of the corporations’ shares were held in trust by Atty. Jose C. Concepcion under three separate “Declarations of Trust and Assignment of Subscription.”
14. Atty. Concepcion and other registered stockholders of the three Cojuangco companies executed Voting Trust Agreements in favor of Cojuangco, representing almost half[142][142] of the total subject SMC shares.
15. The other Cojuangco companies, aside from the three earlier named, were incorporated in Cojuangco’s behalf by the ACCRA Law Office.[143][143]
16. Records show that the other purportedly registered stockholders of the Cojuangco companies did not stake a claim over the SMC shares.
17. On February 25, 1986, Cojuangco left the Philippines with former President Ferdinand Marcos.
18. The PCGG Rules and Regulations define “ill-gotten wealth” as any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any of the [various enumerated] means[144][144] or similar schemes.
19. The year 1983 forms part of the period of the Marcos administration.
20. Cojuangco was President and Member of the Board of Directors of the UCPB, and Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), inter alia, during the Marcos administration.
21. UCPB was a public corporation in 1983.[145][145]
22. The PCA Board of Directors had been expressly given vast authority in managing and disbursing the coconut levy funds including the corporations formed and organized therefrom and all assets acquired therefrom, such as all CIIF Oil Mills.[146][146]
23. Case law provides that a director occupies a fiduciary relation as he cannot serve himself first and his cestuis second. He cannot use his power for his personal advantage and to the detriment of the stockholders and creditors.[147][147]
24. Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code prohibit acts of “self-dealing.”
25. Section 9 of Presidential Decree No. 961 limits the authority to make UCPB investments only in the establishment and operation of industries and commercial activities and other allied business undertakings relating to the coconut and other palm oils industry in all its aspects and the establishment of research into the commercial and industrial uses of coconut and other palm oil industry.
26. Section 83 of the then General Banking Law provides the general rule that prohibits directors and officers of a banking institution from directly or indirectly borrowing any of the deposits of funds of such banks.
27. The exemption granted under Letter of Instructions No. 926 states that loans sourced from the coconut levy funds are extended only to corporate borrowings, not to individual borrowings.
28. The rule on constructive trust under Article 1455 of the Civil Code prohibits a trustee from acquiring for his own benefit the property under his management. Case law provides that fraud need not be shown.[148][148]
29. No evidence was shown to discharge the burden of Cojuangco, as a fiduciary, to demonstrate that the loan transactions were regularly entered into.
30. Section 3(i) of Republic Act No. 3019 prohibits a public officer from becoming interested for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
31. Article 216[149][149] of the Revised Penal Code prohibits public officers from directly or indirectly, becoming interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
IN SUM, since at the time of the purchase of the subject SMC shares, Cojuangco, a trusted close associate of Former President Marcos, was a director and corporate officer of the PCA and UCPB, hence, he was considered a fiduciary of the coconut levy funds, its derivatives and assets, which are public in character being administered by said entities. His use for his personal benefit of the very same funds entrusted to him, which was released to him through illegal and improper machination of loan transactions, and his contravention of the then existing corporation laws and laws restricting a bank’s exposure to its director or officers indicate a clear violation of such fiduciary duty. These shares which respondents acquired using the proceeds from such loans do not thus pertain to them but to the UCPB and the CIIF Oil Mills pursuant to a constructive trust, and following Section 31 of the Corporation Code, said shares should be reconveyed to the Republic in trust for the coconut farmers.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, I DISSENT from the majority opinion as I PROFFER the following dispositions:
The Sandiganbayan’s assailed Resolutions of October 8, 2003 and June 24, 2005 in G.R. No. 169203 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION in that all the restrictions imposed in the dispositive portion thereof are DELETED; the Resolution of December 10, 2004 in G.R. No. 166859 is AFFIRMED; and the Decision of November 28, 2007 in G.R. No. 180702 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The Cojuangco et al. Block of San Miguel Corporation shares of stock totalling 27,198,545 as of the date of sequestration thereof, together with all dividends declared, paid and issued thereon, as well as any increments thereto and rights arising therefrom, are DECLARED owned by the Government in trust for all the coconut farmers and ORDERED RECONVEYED to the Government. For the purpose of determining the total current valuation of these shares, the dividends accruing therefrom and increments thereto,[150][150] the case is REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan which is ordered to carry out the same with dispatch.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
* Defendants-lawyers from ACCRA law firm were excluded from the case per Regala v. Sandiganbayan, 330 Phil. 678 (1996).
[1][1] Per Resolution of January 28, 2008, rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. III, pp. 1216-1217. The Court en banc, by Resolution of February 5, 2008, accepted the transfer and consolidation.
[2][2] Vide rollo (G.R. No. 169203), p. 46. The eight cases are:
Case No. Subject Matter
Civil Case No. 0033-A Anomalous Purchase and Use of First United Bank (now UCPB)
Civil Case No. 0033-B Creation of Companies out of Coco Levy Funds
Civil Case No. 0033-C Creation and Operation of Bugsuk Project and Award of P998M Damages to
Agricultural Investors, Inc.
Civil Case No. 0033-D Disadvantageous Purchases and Settlement of the Accounts of Oil Mills out of
the Coco Levy Funds
Civil Case No. 0033-E Unlawful Disbursement and Dissipation of Coco Levy Funds
Civil Case No. 0033-F Acquisition of San Miguel Corporation
Civil Case No. 0033-G Acquisition of Pepsi Cola
Civil Case No. 0033-H Behest Loans and Contracts.
[3][3] Referring to the defendants Soriano Shares, Inc., Roxas Shares, Inc., Arc Investors, Inc., Fernandez Holdings, Inc., Toda Holdings, Inc., ASC Investors, Inc., Randy Allied Ventures, Inc., AP Holdings, Inc., SMC Officers Corps, Inc., Te Deum Resources, Inc., Anglo Ventures, Inc., Rock Steel Resources, Inc., Valhalla Properties, Ltd., Inc., and First Meridian Development, Inc.
[4][4] At the time of sequestration, infra note 60.
[5][5] Rollo (G.R. No. 166859), p. 66.
[6][6] Id. at 64-92.
[7][7] Republic v. Sandiganbayan (First Division), 310 Phil. 401 (1995); vide Resolution of August 6, 1996.
[8][8] Vide rollo (G.R. No. 169203), pp. 306-316. The nine writs of sequestration are summarized as follows:
| Writ No. | Property Covered | Date Issued | Issued By |
| 1. 86-0042 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the names of:
Agricultural Corp.
|
April 8, 1986 | Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista |
| 2. 86-0062 | Insofar as it refers to shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation Registered in the names of:
a. ECJ & Sons Agricultural Enterprises, Inc. b. Radyo Pilipino Corp. c. Metroplex Commodities, Inc. |
April 21, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 3. 86-0069 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the names of:
|
April 22, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 4. 86-0085 | Insofar as it refers to San Miguel Corporation shares registered in the name of Venture Securities, Inc. | May 9, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 5. 86-0095 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the name of Balete Ranch, Inc. | May 16, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 6. 86-0096 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the name of Oro Verde Services, Inc. | May 16, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 7. 86-0097 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the name of Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. | May 16, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 8. 86-0098 | Shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the name of Kalawakan Resorts, Inc. | May 16, 1986 | Commissioner Ramon A. Diaz |
| 9. 87-0218 | Insofar as it refers to shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation registered in the name of Balete Ranch, Inc. | May 27, 1987 | Commissioners Ramon E. Rodrigo and Quintin S. Doromal |
[9][9] Rollo (G.R. No. 166859), pp. 93-112, 113-127.
[10][10] Id. at 128-143.
[11][11] Juan Ponce Enrile, Danilo Ursua, and the 14 Holding Companies and the CIIF Companies/Oil Mills (Southern Luzon Coconut Oil Mills, Cagayan de Oro Oil Co., Inc, Iligan Coconut Industries, Inc., San Pablo Manufacturing Corp., Granexport Manufacturing Corp., and Legaspi Oil Co., Inc.).
[12][12] Rollo (G.R. No. 169203), pp. 320-323.
[13][13] Also referred to as “CIIF Oil Mills.”
[14][14] Rollo (G.R. No. 169203), pp. 1030-1093; the dispositive portion of which, as modified, reads:
WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, we hold that:
The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Re: Defendants CIIF Companies, 14 Holding Companies and Cocofed, et al.) filed by Plaintiff is hereby GRANTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIIF COMPANIES, NAMELY:
1. Southern Luzon Coconut Oil Mills (Solcom);
2. Cagayan de Oro Oil Co., Inc. (CAGOIL);
3. Iligan Coconut Industries, Inc. (ILICOCO);
4. San Pablo Manufacturing Corp. (SPMC);
5. Granexport Manufacturing Corp. (GRANEX); and
6. Legaspi Oil Co., Inc. (LEGOIL)
AS WELL AS THE 14 HOLDING COMPANIES, NAMELY:
1. Soriano Shares, Inc.;
2. ASC Investors, Inc.;
3. Roxas Shares, Inc.;
4. Arc Investors, Inc.;
5. Toda Holdings, Inc.;
6. AP Holdings, Inc.;
7. Fernandez Holdings, Inc.;
8. SMC Officers Corps, Inc.;
9. Te Deum Resources, Inc.;
10. Anglo Ventures, Inc.;
11. Randy Allied Ventures, Inc.;
12. Rock Steel Resources, Inc.;
13. Valhalla Properties, Ltd., Inc.; and
14. First Meridian Development, Inc.
AND THE CIIF BLOCK OF SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION (SMC) SHARES OF STOCK TOTALLING 33,133, 266 SHARES AS OF 1983 TOGETHER WITH ALL DIVIDENDS DECLARED, PAID AND ISSUED THEREON AS WELL AS ANY INCREMENTS THERETO ARISING FROM, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, EXERCISE OF PRE-EMPTIVE RIGHTS ARE DECLARED OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN TRUST FOR ALL THE COCONUT FARMERS AND ORDERED RECONVEYED TO THE GOVERNMENT.
The aforementioned Partial Summary Judgment is now deemed a separate appealable judgment which finally disposes of the ownership of the CIIF Block of SMC Shares, without prejudice to the continuation of proceedings with respect to the remaining claims particularly those pertaining to the Cojuangco, et al. block of SMC shares.
SO ORDERED.
[15][15]Rollo (G.R. No. 166859), pp. 144-186.
[16][16]The Resolution, albeit dated September 17, 2003, was promulgated on October 8, 2003 by the Sandiganbayan, the First Division of which was composed of Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta (ponente), Gregory Ong, Godofredo Legaspi, and Francisco Villaruz, Jr. [rollo (G.R. No. 169203), pp. 40-55].
[17][17]Rollo (G.R. No. 169203), p. 54. Ordered to be annotated are the following conditions:
(1) any sale, pledge, mortgage or other disposition of any of the shares of the Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. shall be subject to the outcome of this case;
(2) the Republic through the PCGG shall be given twenty (20) days written notice by Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, et al. prior to any sale, pledge, mortgage or other disposition of the shares;
(3) in the event of sale, mortgage or other disposition of the shares, by the Defendants Eduardo Cojuangco, et al., the consideration therefor, whether in cash or in kind, shall be placed in escrow with Land Bank of the Philippines, subject to disposition only upon further orders of this Court; and
(4) any cash dividends that are declared on the shares shall be placed in escrow with the Land Bank of the Philippines, subject to disposition only upon further orders of this Court. If in case stock dividends are declared, the conditions on the sale, pledge, mortgage and other disposition of any of the shares as above-mentioned in conditions 1, 2, and 3, shall likewise apply.
[18][18] Id. at 74-82.
[19][19] Id. at 11.
[20][20] The Sandiganbayan resolved: “This notwithstanding however, while the Court exempts the sale from the express condition that it shall be subject to the outcome of the case, defendants Cojuangco, et al. may well be reminded that despite the deletion of the said condition, they cannot transfer to any buyer any interest higher than what they have. No one can transfer a right to another greater than what he himself has. Hence, in the event that the Republic prevails in the instant case, defendants Cojuangco, et al. hold themselves liable to their tranferees-buyers, especially if they are buyers in good faith and for value. In such eventuality, defendants Cojuangco et al. cannot be shielded by the cloak of principle of caveat emptor because “case law has it that this rule only requires the purchaser to exercise such care and attention as is usually exercised by ordinarily prudent man in like business affairs, and only applies to defects which are open and patent to the service of one exercising such care.” [Sandiganbayan Decision of November 28, 2007, p. 34, citing Records, Vol. 18, pp. 181-195].
[21][21] In the amount of “four billion, three hundred eighty six million, one hundred seven thousand, four hundred twenty-eight pesos and thirty four centavos (Php4,786,107,428.34)”(sic) [Sandiganbayan Decision of November 28, 2007, p. 35, citing Manifestation filed on August 7, 2007 (Records, Vol. 19)].
[22][22] Rollo (G.R. No. 166859), pp. 20-21.
[23][23] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. III, pp. 883-884.
[24][24] Id. at 885-1059.
[25][25] Id. at 1127-1214.
[26][26] Penned by Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, with Justices Teresita Leonardo-De Castro and Efren N. De la Cruz, concurring.
[27][27] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. I, p. 130.
[28][28] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 421-422.
[29][29] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. 1, pp. 18-62. Petitioner-intervenors also repleaded and adopted in G.R. No. 169203 the allegations in their petition in G.R. No. 180702. [rollo (G.R. No. 169203), pp. 449-460].
[30][30] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. V, unpaginated.
[31][31] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. I, p. 34.
[32][32] G.R. No. 119292, July 31, 1998, 293 SCRA 440.
[33][33] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, id. at 454-456.
[34][34] Writ No. 87-0218, it may be recalled, was actually signed by two PCGG commissioners, while Writ No. 86-0042 was issued before the subject rules took effect; vide YKR Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 162079, March 18, 2010, and Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan, 336 Phil. 304, 318-319 (1997) on the non-retroactivity of the PCGG rules.
[35][35] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 135789, January 31, 2002, 375 SCRA 425, 429.
[36][36] Vide Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Tan, G.R. Nos. 173553-56, December 7, 2007, 539 SCRA 464, wherein the Court examined and evaluated the order of sequestration and the minutes of the meeting.
[37][37] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 88126, July 12, 1996, 258 SCRA 685.
[38][38] Rollo (G.R. No. 169203), p. 50.
[39][39] Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Tan, supra at 483-484.
[40][40] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96073, January 23, 1995, 240 SCRA 376, 454-456:
VIII. Indications that Some Corporations Are In Fact Mere “Dummies”
To be sure, the records of these cases abound with indications, mostly in the form of admissions, that several of the corporations listed in the complaint against Eduardo J. Cojuangco, Jr. are “dummies” or manipulated instruments, or repositories of wealth deceitfully amassed at the expense of the People, or simply the fruits thereof.
A. Dummy Owners of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) Stock
For instance three (3) corporations, namely: (1) Meadow-Lark Plantations, Inc., (2) Primavera Farms, Inc., and (3) Silver-Leaf Plantations, Inc., appear in the books of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as owners of 8,138,440 shares of the latter’s stock. And a certain Jose C. Concepcion also appears in its books as owner of “San Miguel Corporation Stock Certificate No. A962930 for 5,000 shares.”
All the outstanding capital stock (100%) of these three (3) companies is owned by five (5) persons, all lawyers, namely: (1) the aforenamed Jose C. Concepcion, (2) Victoria C. de los Reyes, (3) Florentino M. Herrera III, (4) Teresita J. Herbosa, and (5) Jose Riodil Montebon. Concepcion, Herbosa and Montebon are members of one law firm; Herrera and de los Reyes are members of another.
All these (5) are shown to be signatories of three (3) identically worded voting trust agreements executed on April 13, 1984 giving to Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. the right to vote for a period of five (5) years, the shares of stock of the three (3) corporations above mentioned — of the entire capital stock of which they are, as aforestated, the ostensible owners.
Moreover, there are on record more or less identically worded affidavits of Jose C. Concepcion, Teresita J. Herbosa and Jose R.D. Montebon frankly confessing that the shares of stock listed under their names in the corporate books of the three (3) corporations above mentioned — and several other firms shortly to be named — were merely assigned to them as “nominee stockholders,” but in truth they do “not have any proprietary interest in any of . . . (said) shares of stock.”
Concepcion’s affidavit contains the additional declaration of his being “nominee stockholder” of “San Miguel Corporation Stock Certificate No. A962930 for 5,000 shares and all stock dividends declared thereon,” supra, although in truth he does “not have any proprietary interest” therein.
It thus appears that by their own unequivocal admissions, not one of the aforementioned five attorneys is the owner of the stock under their names in the three (3) corporations above mentioned, which in turn own not inconsiderable stock in San Miguel Corporation.
Jose C. Concepcion appears further more to have executed in blank three (3) documents entitled “DECLARATION OF TRUST AND ASSIGNMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION,” all dated April 13, 1984, in each of which he (a) declares that all shares of stock registered in his name in the three corporations above named (Meadow-Lark Plantations, Inc., Primavera Farms, Inc., and Siver-Leaf Plantations, Inc.) were assigned to him “only as nominee and only for the benefit and in trust for” an assignee whom he does not name, and (b) binds himself “to assign, transfer and convey all his rights, title and interest in the aforesaid shares of stock in favor of the (unnamed) ASSIGNEE or his nominees or assigns at anytime upon the request of the ASSIGNEE.”
[41][41] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96073, Resolution of August 6, 1996.
[42][42] The Sandiganbayan, by Resolution of April 8, 1992, granted corporate respondents’ motion to withdraw the ground of lack of prima facie showing. [vide private respondents’ Comment (in G.R. No. 180702) of May 7, 2008 on its Annex “G”, pp. 4-6].
[43][43] Rules of Court, Rule 15, Sec. 8.
[44][44] G.R. No. 88126, July 12, 1996, 258 SCRA 685.
[45][45] Id. at 697-698.
[46][46] Vide Soriano III v. Yuson, No. L-74910, August 10, 1988, 164 SCRA 226 where the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive jurisdiction evidently extends not only to the principal causes of action, i.e., the recovery of 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, and the sequestration thereof.
[47][47] Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 88228, June 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 864 where the Sandiganbayan, upon motion, placed the cash dividends of a sequestered corporation in custodia legis instead of allowing them to remain in the name and under the control of one of the litigants.
[48][48] Gochan v. Young, 406 Phil 663, 679 (2001).
[49][49] Chemphil Export and Import v. CA, 321 Phil. 619, 645 (1995).
[50][50] G.R. No. 119292, July 31, 1998, 293 SCRA 440, 468 citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 88228, June 27, 1990, 186 SCRA 864, 872-873.
[51][51] Vide Universal Staffing Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 177576, July 21, 2008, 559 SCRA 221, 231-232: It is a well-settled procedural rule in this jurisdiction, and we see no reason why it should not apply in this case, that an appellee who has not himself appealed cannot obtain from the appellate court any affirmative relief other than those granted in the decision of the court below. The appellee can only advance any argument that he may deem necessary to defeat the appellant’s claim or to uphold the decision that is being disputed. He can assign errors on appeal if such is required to strengthen the views expressed by the court a quo. Such assigned errors, in turn, may be considered by the appellate court solely to maintain the appealed decision on other grounds, but not for the purpose of modifying the judgment in the appellee’s favor and giving him other affirmative reliefs. (underscoring supplied)
[52][52] 404 Phil. 961, 979 (2001).
[53][53] Vide Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Sandiganbayan, 418 Phil. 8, 20 (2001); Republic of the Phils v. Sandiganbayan, 355 Phil. 181, 206-207 (1998).
[54][54] Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139278, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 290, 298.
[55][55] Vide id. at 299.
[56][56] Rivera v. United Laboratories, Inc., G.R. No. 155639, April 22, 2009, 586 SCRA 269, 288.
[57][57] Vide Cucueco v. Court of Appeals, supra at 300.
[58][58] Vide Technol Eight Philippines Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 187605, April 13, 2010.
[59][59] Latin phase which means “with all other
factors or things remaining the same.” <http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>
[60][60] Draft Ponencia, p. 43???.
[61][61] The Sandiganbayan enumerates these corporations as follows:
(1) Agricultural Consultancy Services, Inc.
(2) Archipelago Realty Corp.,
(3) Balete Ranch, Inc.,
(4) Black Stallion Ranch, Inc.,
(5) Christensen Plantation Company,
(6) Discovery Realty Corp.,
(7) Dream Pastures, Inc.,
(8) Echo Ranch, Inc.,
(9) Far East Ranch, Inc.
(10) Filsov Shipping Company, Inc.,
(11) First United Transport, Inc.,
(12) Habagat Realty Development, Inc.,
(13) Kalawakan Resorts, Inc.,
(14) Kaunlaran Agircultural Corp.,
(15) Labayug Air Terminals, Inc.,
(16) Landair International Marketing Corp.,
(17) LHL Cattle Corporation,
(18) Lucena Oil Factory, Inc.,
(19) Meadow Lark Plantations, Inc.,
(20) Metroplex Commodities, Inc.,
(21) Misty Mountain Agircultural Corp.,
(22) Northeast Contract Traders, Inc.,
(23) Northern Carriers Corporation,
(24) Oceanside Maritime Enterprises, Inc.
(25) Oro Verde Services, Inc.,
(26) Pastoral Farms, Inc.,
(27) PCY Oil Manufacturing Corp.,
(28) Philippine Technologies, Inc.,
(29) Primavera Farms, Inc.,
(30) Punong-Bayan Housing Development Corp.,
(31) Pura Electric Company Inc.,
(32) Radio Audience Developers Integrate Organization, Inc.
(33) Radyo Pilipino Corporation,
(34) Rancho Grande, Inc.,
(35) Reddee Developers, Inc.,
(36) San Esteban Development Corp.,
(37) Silver Leaf Plantations, Inc.,
(38) Southern Service Traders, Inc.,
(39) Southern Star Cattle Corp.,
(40) Spade One Resorts Corp.,
(41) Unexplored Land Developers, Inc.,
(42) Verdant Plantations, Inc.,
(43) Vesta Agricultural Corp. and
(44) Wings Resorts Corporation
[62][62] The Sandiganbayan found that these shares were distributed among the defendant corporations as follows:
| STOCKHOLDERS | (ORIGINAL)
NO. OF SHARES |
(PRESENT*)
NO. OF SHARES |
| Primavera Farms, Inc. | 5,381,643 | 21,626,164 |
| Black Stallion Ranch, Inc. | 3,587,695 | 14,360,772 |
| Misty Mountains Agri’l Corp. | 3,587,695 | 14,360,772 |
| Pastoral Farms, Inc. | 3,587,695 | 14,350,772 |
| Meadow Lark Plantation, Inc. | 2,690,771 | 10,763,080 |
| Silver Leaf Plantation, Inc. | 2,690,771 | 10,763,080 |
| Lucena Oil Factory, Inc. | 169,174 | 676,696 |
| PCY Oil Manufacturing Corp. | 167,887 | 671,464 |
| Metroplex Commodities, Inc. | 167,777 | 671,104 |
| Kaunlaran Agricultural Corp. | 145,475 | 581,800 |
| Redee Developers, Inc. | 169,071 | 676,280 |
| Agrl’l Consultancy Serv., Inc. | 167,907 | 671,624 |
| First United Transport, Inc. | 168,963 | 675,848 |
| Verdant Plantations, Inc. | 145,475 | 581,900 |
| Christensen Plantation Co. | 169,920 | 675,680 |
| Northern Carriers Corp. | 167,891 | 671,560 |
| Vesta Agricultural Corp. | 145,475 | 581,900 |
| Ocean Side Maritime Ent. Inc. | 132,250 | 529,000 |
| Pura Electric Company, Inc. | 99,587 | 398,336 |
| Unexplored Land Developers, Inc. | 102,823 | 411,288 |
| Punong-Bayan Housing Dev’t Corp. | 132,250 | 529,000 |
| Habagat Realty Development, Inc. | 145,822 | 593,280 |
| Spade One Resorts Corp. | 147,040 | 588,280 |
| Wings Resorts Corp. | 104,886 | 419,536 |
| Kalawakan Resorts, Inc. | 132,250 | 529,000 |
| Labayug Air Terminals, Inc. | 159,106 | 636,416 |
| Landair Int’s Marketing Corp. | 168,965 | 675,856 |
| San Esteban Dev’t Corp. | 167,879 | 670,716 |
| Philippine Technologies, Inc. | 132,250 | 529,000 |
| Balete Ranch, Inc. | 166,395 | 665,576 |
| Discovery Realty Corp. | 169,203 | 676,808 |
| Archipelago Realty Corp. | 167,761 | 671,040 |
| Southern Service Traders, Inc. | 120,480 | 481,916 |
| Oro Verde Services, Inc. | 132,250 | 529,000 |
| Northeast Contract Traders | 132,536 | 538,144 |
| Dream Pastures, Inc. | 159,237 | 676,948 |
| LHL Cattle Corporation | 183,216 | 676,880 |
| Rancho Grande, Inc. | 167,614 | 870,452 |
| Echo Ranch, Inc. | 167,897 | 671,584 |
| Far East Ranch, Inc. | 169,227 | 676,908 |
| Southern Star Cattle Corp. | 159,095 | 676,376 |
| Radio Audience Developers Integrated Or., Inc. | 167,787 | 671,104 |
| Radyo Pilipino Corp. | 167,777 | 671,104 |
| TOTAL | 27,198,545 | 108,846,948 |
[63][63] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 831-833.
[64][64] Rollo (G.R. No. 166859), p. 61; (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 833.
[65][65] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. I, pp. 142, 148-149, 151-155.
[66][66] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 592-593, 597-598, 600-603.
[67][67] Id. at 616-618.
[68][68] Cojuangco’s Answer, rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, p. 597.
[69][69] Cojuangco Companies’ Answer, rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, p. 617.
[70][70] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 634-637.
[71][71] Administrative Circular No. 3-99 (January 15, 1999).
[72][72] Rules of Court, Rule 129, Sec. 1.
[73][73] Revised Reflections, pp. 61-62.
[74][74] G.R. No. 157847, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 142.
[75][75] Id. at 149-150.
[76][76] A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC (July 13, 2004) “Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by Trial court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures.”
[77][77] Sandiganbayan’s Pre-Trial Order.
[78][78] Asean Pacific Planners v. City of Urdaneta, G.R. No. 162525, September 23, 2008, 566 SCRA 219, 235; vide Rules of Court, Rule 132, Sec. 2
[79][79] Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117032, July 27, 2000, 336 SCRA 475, 481.
[80][80] Vide People v. Quebral, 68 Phil. 564, 567 (1939).
[81][81] 427 Phil. 577, 590-591 (2002).
[82][82] G.R. No. 170241, April 19, 2010, 618 SCRA 368.
[83][83] Id. at 376.
[84][84] Vide Republic v. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 676, 692-693.
[85][85] G.R. No. 152578, November 23, 2005, 476 SCRA 20.
[86][86] Id. at 55-56.
[87][87] Republic v. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 676, 692.
[88][88] G.R. No. 75713, October 2, 1989, 178 SCRA 236.
[89][89] Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 75713, October 2, 1989, 178 SCRA 236, 240-246.
[90][90] Vide Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 118661, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 25, 54.
[91][91] Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED) v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, supra at 252-253.
[92][92] G.R. No. 96073, February 16, 1993 Resolution.
[93][93] G.R. Nos. 147062-64, December 14, 2001, 372 SCRA 462.
[94][94] G.R. No. 118661, January 22, 2007, 512 SCRA 25, 28, 53.
[95][95] Id. at 28, 53.
[96][96] The Court, indeed, has already made the categorical declaration in COCOFED v. PCGG (G.R. No. 75713, October 2, 1989, 178 SCRA 236), reiterated in Republic v. COCOFED (G.R. Nos. 147062-64, December 14, 2001; 372 SCRA 462), that the UCPB was acquired with the use of the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund, by virtue of P.D. 755 (1975).
[97][97] Approving The Credit Policy For The Coconut Industry As Recommended By The Philippine Coconut Authority And Providing Funds Therefor.
[98][98] DBP Pool of Accredited Insurance Companies v. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., G.R. No. 147039, January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 314, 322.
[99][99] Parel v. Prudencio, G.R. No. 146556, April 19, 2006, 487 SCRA 405, 418-419, citing Jison v. CA, 350 Phil. 138, 173 (1998).
[100][100] Vide Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Balagot, G.R. No. 169016, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 672, 679, citing Bautista v. Sarmiento, No. L-45137, September 23, 1985, 138 SCRA 587, 593.
[101][101] Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143375, July 6, 2001, 360 SCRA 618, 627.
[102][102] Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004), p. 1228.
[103][103] Under Article 1448 of the Civil Code, which reads: There is an implied trust when property is sold, and the legal estate is granted to one party but the price is paid by another for the purpose of having the beneficial interest of the property. The former is the trustee, while the latter is the beneficiary. x x x x.
[104][104] Creating The Presidential Commission On Good Government.
[105][105] 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.
[106][106] Per Teehankee, C.J., in Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Peña, No. L-77663, April 12, 1988, 159 SCRA 556, 562, 566 citing Justice Isagani Cruz’s separate opinion in Baseco v. PCGG, 150 SCRA 181, 243, which phrase was borrowed from Constitutional Commissioner Blas Ople.
[107][107] PCGG Rules and Regulations, Sec. 1(A).
[108][108] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, pp. 592-593.
[109][109] “3) Whether or not defendant Cojuangco had indeed served in the governing bodies of PCA, UCPB and/or CIIF Oil Mills at the time the funds used to purchase the SMC shares were obtained such that he owed a fiduciary duty to render an account to these entities as well as to the coconut farmers[.]” [rollo (G.R. No. 166859), p. 61; (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, p. 833].
[110][110] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. I, p. 148.
[111][111] Rollo (G.R. No. 180702), Vol. II, p. 596.
[112][112] Vide Rules of Court, Rule 8, Sec. 10.
[113][113] “An Act Creating The Philippine Coconut Administration, Prescribing Its Powers, Functions And Duties, And Providing For The Raising Of The Necessary Funds For Its Operation,” enacted on June 17, 1954.
[114][114] Known as the “Revised Coconut Industry Code.”
[115][115] Vide Rules of Court, Rule 129, Sec. 1.
[116][116] 1981 PCA Annual Report, 1982 PCA Annual Report, 1984 Annual Report, reproduced from copies in the collection of the National Library. The 1983 PCA Annual Report was reportedly unavailable.
[117][117] Executive Order No. 292 (July 25, 1987).
[118][118] Presidential Decree No. 2029 entitled “Defining Government-Owned or Controlled Corporations and Identifying their Role in National Development” (February 4, 1986).
[119][119] Id., 2nd whereas clause.
[120][120] Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Edition), p. 625.
[121][121] Vide Matter of Heilman’s Estate, 37 Ill.App.3d 390, 345 N.E.2d 536, 540.
[122][122] Black’s Law Dictionary, supra.
[123][123] G.R. No. L-45911, April 11, 1979, 89 SCRA 336.
[124][124] Id. at 367-368.
[125][125] Said section has been incorporated into the present General Banking Law of 2000 as Sec. 36, viz.:
Sec. 36. Restriction on Bank Exposure to Directors, Officers, Stockholders and Their Related Interests. – No director or officer of any bank shall, directly or indirectly, for himself or as the representative or agent of others, borrow from such bank nor shall he become a guarantor, endorser or surety for loans from such bank to others, or in any manner be an obligor or incur any contractual liability to the bank except with the written approval of the majority of all the directors of the bank, excluding the director concerned: Provided, That such written approval shall not be required for loans, other credit accommodations and advances granted to officers under a fringe benefit plan approved by the Bangko Sentral. The required approval shall be entered upon the records of the bank and a copy of such entry shall be transmitted forthwith to the appropriate supervising and examining department of the Bangko Sentral.
Dealings of a bank with any of its directors, officers or stockholders and their related interests shall be upon terms not less favorable to the bank than those offered to others.
After due notice to the board of directors of the bank, the office of any bank director or officer who violates the provisions of this Section may be declared vacant and the director or officer shall be subject to the penal provisions of the New Central Bank Act.
The Monetary Board may regulate the amount of loans, credit accommodations and guarantees that may be extended, directly or indirectly, by a bank to its directors, officers, stockholders and their related interests, as well as investments of such bank in enterprises owned or controlled by said directors, officers, stockholders and their related interests. However, the outstanding loans, credit accommodations and guarantees which a bank may extend to each of its stockholders, directors, or officers and their related interests, shall be limited to an amount equivalent to their respective unencumbered deposits and book value of their paid-in capital contribution in the bank: Provided, however, That loans, credit accommodations and guarantees secured by assets considered as non-risk by the Monetary Board shall be excluded from such limit: Provided, further, That loans, credit accommodations and advances to officers in the form of fringe benefits granted in accordance with rules as may be prescribed by the Monetary Board shall not be subject to the individual limit.
The Monetary Board shall define the term “related interests.”
The limit on loans, credit accommodations and guarantees prescribed herein shall not apply to loans, credit accommodations and guarantees extended by a cooperative bank to its cooperative shareholders.
[126][126] Supra.
[127][127] 10,763,185 out of the 27,198,545 SMC shares at the time of sequestration.
[128][128] Vide Answer, rollo, (G.R. No. 180702), pp. 177-179.
[129][129] Vide Republic v. Estate of Hans Menzi, supra at 58-59.
[130][130] Supra, citing Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 240 SCRA 376 (1995).
[131][131] Salao v. Salao, G.R. No. L-26699, March 16, 1976, 70 SCRA 65.
[132][132] G.R. No. 108525, September 13, 1994, 236 SCRA 420.
[133][133] Id. at 428.
[134][134] G.R. No. L-18058, January 16, 1923, 4 Phil. 343, citing Gilbert vs. Hemston, 79 Mich. 326.
[135][135] Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines (1997 Edition), Vol. VII, Part II, p. 15-16, citing 20 Am. Jur. 147.
[136][136] Under Republic Act No. 3019, a “public officer” includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government.
Pursuant to the Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, a “public officer” is “any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.”
[137][137] Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate. (underscoring supplied)
[138][138] Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against these public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
[139][139] Vide U.S. v. Udarbe, 28 Phil. 383.
[140][140] Revised Reflections, p. 52.
[141][141] Republic v. Vda. De Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 676, 692-693.
[142][142] 10,763,185 out of the 27,198,545 SMC shares at the time of sequestration.
[143][143] Vide Answer, rollo, (G.R. No. 180702), pp. 177-178.
[144][144] Draft Ponencia, p. 51, cites:
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
(2) Through the receipt, directly or indirectly, of any commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or position of the official concerned.
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled corporations;
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or participation in any business enterprise or undertaking;
(5) Through the establishment of agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other combination and/or by the issuance, promulgation and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; and
(6) By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship or influence for personal gain or benefit.
[145][145] Vide Draft Ponencia, p. 59, states that given the extent of government ownership of its shares of stock, the public nature of the funds in its control, the purpose for which it was acquired, and the manner of its acquisition, UCPB was thus a government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC). Meanwhile, PCA was a government entity. Considering the foregoing and in light of the earlier admissions, the draft ponencia concludes that Cojuangco was indeed a public officer in 1983, it having been established that Cojuangco was a PCA Director and a UCPB President and Director.
[146][146] Draft Ponencia, pp. 54-57.
[147][147] Draft Ponencia, pp. 60-61, citing Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. L-45911, April 11, 1979, 89 SCRA 336, , inter alia.
[148][148] Draft Ponencia, pp. 67-68, citing Severino v. Severino, 4 Phil. 343 (1923), inter alia.
[149][149] Art. 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public officer. – The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon a public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business in which it is his official duty to intervene.
This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in any contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors with respect to the property belonging to their wards or estate.
[150][150] In conformity with Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 183278, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 790.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 