Corpo Case Digest

REPUBLIC VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

GR, NO 113420, MARCH 7, 1997

FACTS OF THE CASE

“Republic of the Philippines is represented by the PCGG; SandiganBayan, Third Division; PRIVIDENT INTERNATIONAL RESOURSES CORPORATION, and Phil. Casino Operators Corp., respondents”

On March 18,1986, pursuant to power vested upon it by the President (Aquino) under E.O. # 1, the PCGG issued a writ of sequestration against the assets of Provident International Resources Corp. and Philippine Casino Operators Corp. (herein respondent Corp.)

On July 1987, petitioner RP through the Solicitor General filed before the Sandiganbayan a complaint, a civil case against Edward T. Marcelo, Fabian C. Ver, Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth acquired by them during the former Dictators regime.

Among the listed Corporations held and controlled by defendant Marcelo and among the assets apparently acquired illegally by the defendants were respondent Corporations.

On September 1991, respondent corporations filed before the Sandiganbayan a petition for mandamus praying for lifting of the writ of Sequestration issued by PCGG. On December 4, 1991 public respondent (Sandiganbayan) in its Resolution, granted the respondent corporations prayer and lifted the writ of Sequestration issued against them, and ordered the PCGG to restore to the petitioners all their assets, properties records and documents subject of sequestration on the ground that:

ISSUE

1) For Failure of the respondent (PCGG) to file the proper judicial action against

them within the period fixed in Sec.26 Art XVIII of the 1987 Constitution : and

2) the writ of Sequestration was signed by only one PCGG Commission.

RULING

The petitioner (PCGG filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

“In terms of juridical personality and legal culpability from their erring members on stockholders, said corporation are not themselves guilty of the sins of the latter. They are simply the res in the actions for the recovery of illegally acquired wealth and there is, in principle, no cause of action against them and no ground to implead them as defendants.”