G.R. No. 131530 - Y REALTY CORPORATION, VS. HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO AND IMELDA O. COJUANGCO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, as petitioner claims to own 31% of PTIC, which has a more recent value of P1,078,260,896.56, he should be made to pay at least the sum of P5,391,154.35. On May 7, 1996, the Sandiganbayan denied PHI's and the Cojuangcos motion for reconsideration of its April 17, 1995 Resolution. Thereafter, respondents PHI and the Cojuangcos filed their answer to the amended complaint-in-intervention. On June 11, 1996, petitioner moved that the amount of P14,425,00 be refunded to him, insisting that proceedings in the Sandiganbayan should be free of charge. The Sandiganbayan, on October 9, 1996, issued the assailed resolution granting the motion to dismiss and denying petitioner's motion to admit second amended complaint-in-intervention. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated October 30, 1996, and PHI and the Cojuangcos filed their opposition. The Republic filed a manifestation dated December 24, 1996 adopting the arguments raised by PHI and the Cojuangcos. On October 6, 1997, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence this petition." In his petition in G.R. No. 131127, Alfonso Yuchengco assailed respondent Court's Resolutions dated October 9, 1996 and October 6, 1997 dismissing his amended complaint-in-intervention for his failure to pay the correct amount of docket fee on time. In setting aside the twin Resolutions, this Court held: "As earlier stated, the main issue to be resolved in the case at bar is whether or not petitioner (Alfonso Yuchengco) is barred from asserting his alleged causes of action against respondents by reason of non-payment of the proper docket fees." xxx xxx xxx "It should be noted that when the issue on docket fees was raised, petitioner submitted the determination of the same to the sound discretion of the Sandiganbayan. As earlier stated, he sought for the immediate resolution of this issue as early as October 27, 1994. In the alternative, petitioner proposed to post a bond to answer for the docket fees, if such are payable. He even filed a petition for certiorari, docketed as G.R. No. 123264, to seek an early resolution of this issue. Clearly, petitioner did not sleep on his rights, and prescription has not set in to bar his right to seek judicial relief. The essence of the statute of limitations is to prevent fraudulent claims arising from unwarranted length of time and not to defeat actions asserted on the honest belief that they were sufficiently submitted for judicial determination. To punish petitioner for public respondent's failure to timely decide an issue pivotal to the success of his case would be setting a bad precedent. It would give trial courts unbridled power and an unfair weapon to frustrate the filing of actions. We hold that public respondent's belated action after prolonged inaction on the issue of petitioner's payment of docket fees is a supervening event beyond the independent will and control of petitioner that tolled the running of the prescriptive period."