G.R. No. 119292 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, IMELDA COJUANGCO, THE ESTATE OF RAMON COJUANGCO REPRESENTED BY IMELDA COJUANGCO, AND PRIME HOLDINGS, INC.. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Order of Sequestration dated May 9, 1986 directed (against) defendant Prime Holdings, Inc. and the Order dated May 9, 1986 sequestering 111,415 shares of stocks of Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corporation registered in the name of Prime Holdings, Inc. are hereby declared automatically lifted pursuant to Section 26 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Philippines Constitution. [10] Expectedly, PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration. [11] Noting that petitioner raised no new issue or matter that might materially affect its findings in its previous Resolution, public respondent denied said Motion for lack of merit. [12] Hence, the present recourse. [13] The Issues Petitioner PCGG charges Respondent Sandiganbayan with grave abuse of discretion and act[ing] without jurisdiction, viz.: I. In declaring the writs of sequestration as defective for not being authorized by at least two commissioners pursuant to Section 3 of the PCGG Rules and Regulations. II. In declaring the writs of sequestration to have been automatically lifted for alleged failure of petitioner to file the proper judicial action against private respondent corporation within the period fixed in Section 26 of Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. III. In applying the rulings in PCGG vs. International Copra Export Corp. (G.R. No. 92755, July 26, 1991) and Republic vs. Sandiganbayan (200 SCRA 530 [1991] ) that the filing by petitioner of the judicial action against a stockholder is not the judicial action contemplated by the Constitution. IV. By misinterpreting or misapplying the ruling in Filmerco vs. IAC (149 SCRA 193 [1987] ) as said ruling, being a mere obiter dictum, had not overturned the application of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction as held in a long line of decisions by this Honorable Court. [14] Simply stated, the principal issues being raised by petitioner are: (1) the validity of the sequestration orders against PHI and PHI-held shares in PTIC; and (2) the alleged failure of PCGG to file the proper judicial action as contemplated under Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution. Before this Court, private respondents initially filed a motion [15] to dismiss the petition on the ground of laches, the petition having been filed only after six and a half months from petitioners receipt of the public respondents denial of its Motion for Reconsideration. They assert that this interval of time was clearly beyond the reasonable period allowed under Rule 65 for filing a petition for certiorari. [16] Prior to the amendment of the Rules of Court on July 1, 1997, we had ruled in several cases that three (3) months from receipt of the challenged decision, order or resolution was a reasonable period within which to institute a certiorari proceeding. [17] Thus, in People vs. Magallanes, [18] the lapse of nine to ten months before assailing a denial of bail was no longer considered reasonable. Furthermore, in Cruz vs. Court of Ap