Corpo Case Digest

PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

G.R. No. 125788

FACTS OF THE CASE

Petitioner PCGG filed in the Sandiganbayan a case for re-conveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages (Civil Case No. 0009) against Manuel H. Nieto, Jose L. Africa, Roberto S. Benedicto, Potenciano Illusorio, Juan Ponce Enrile and Ferdinand E. Marcos, Jr., alleging, in substance, that said defendants acted as “dummies of the late strongman and devised “schemes and stratagems” to monopolize the telecommunications industry. Annexed to the complaint is a listing of the assets of defendants Nieto and Africa, among which are their shares of stock in private respondent Aerocom Investors and Managers, Inc. (Aerocom).

After a year, the PCGG sought to sequester Aerocom under a writ of sequestration which was served and received “under protest” by Aerocom’s president. Then Aerocom filed a complaint against the PCGG urging the Sandiganbayan (Civil Case No. 0044) to nullify the same on the ground that it was served on Aerocom beyond the 18-month period from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Then, Aerocom filed a Manifestation and Motion praying that the Sandiganbayan direct the PCGG to release and distribute the dividends pertaining to the shares of Aerocom in all corporations where it owns shares of stock. PCGG opposed the release of the dividends on the argument that “the fact that plaintiff Aerocom is mentioned in Annex A of the complaint filed in Civil Case No. 0009 is a clear indication that the shares thereof are likewise sequestered.”

Sandiganbayan ordered the PCGG to release the dividends pertaining to Aerocom except the dividends on the sequestered shares of stock registered in the names of Nieto and Africa. This is on the ground that the complaint in Civil Case No. 0009 does not show that Aerocom was itself sequestered. Aerocom, being a corporation, has a separate and distinct juridical personality from its stakeholders.

ISSUE

Whether Sandiganbayan erred in ordering the PCGG to release the dividends of Aerocom, with exception as to the sequestered shares of stock of Nieto and Africa.

RULING

Sandiganbayan did not err in ordering the PCGG to release the dividends of Aerocom. The PCGG failed to file the corresponding judicial action against Aerocom within then period provided for in the Constitution. The fact that Aerocom was mentioned in the complaint of the PCGG in Civil Case No. 0009 and in Annex A thereof cannot justify the sequestration of the dividends pertaining to Aerocom, as it was not impleaded as party-defendant.

There is no existing sequestration in this case, as the writ issued against Aerocom is invalid. The suit in Civil Case No. 0009 against Nieto and Africa as shareholders in Aerocom is not and cannot ipso facto be a suit against the unimpleaded Aerocom itself without violating the fundamental principle that a corporation has a legal personality distinct and separate from its stockholders.

Failure to implead these corporations as defendants and merely annexing a list of such corporations to the complaints is a violation of their right to due process for it would be in effect disregarding their distinct and separate personality without a hearing.