Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . [15] (Citations omitted) By virtue of the aforesaid Decision in Republic of the Phils, v. Sandiganbayan , POTC and PHILCOMSAT filed an Omnibus Motion [16] dated 28 February 2005, which sought to nullify and/or discharge the continued sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT and to declare null and void the PCGG Memorandum to the BSP dated 24 October 2000.
WHEREFORE , the instant petitions are hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . [15] (Citations omitted) By virtue of the aforesaid Decision in Republic of the Phils, v. Sandiganbayan , POTC and PHILCOMSAT filed an Omnibus Motion [16] dated 28 February 2005, which sought to nullify and/or discharge the continued sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT and to declare null and void the PCGG Memorandum to the BSP dated 24 October 2000. On 20 October 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied POTC and PHILCOMSAT's Omnibus Motion in the assailed Resolution. [17] The Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution [18] dated 2 August 2006. Hence, the present Petition, which raises the following assignment of errors. ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS (A) The public respondent Sandiganbayan erred, and in fact, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled that the sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT is still necessary under the present circumstances. (B) The public respondent Sandiganbayan erred, and in fact, gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled that the appointment of a PCGG fiscal agent in POTC and PHILCOMSAT is justified under the present circumstances. (C) The public respondent Sandiganbayan erred, and in fact, [gravely] abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it ruled that the sequestration order against the petitioners is valid despite clear fatal legal infirmities thereto. [19] Arguments of POTC and PHILCOMSAT POTC and PHILCOMSAT aver that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction by affirming the continued sequestration of the shares, disregarding the final and executory Decision and Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 15 June 2005 and 7 September 2005 in Republic of the Phils, v. Sandiganbayan , which already ruled on the pwnership of the subject shares. In the aforesaid case, the Court upheld the Compromise Agreement between the government and Ilusorio. As a consequence, the government is now the undisputed owner of 34.9% of the shares of stock of the sequestered corporations. Pursuant to the final and executory Decision of the Court, there is no longer need for the continued sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT. POTC and PHILCOMSAT cited the pronouncement of this Court in Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO) v. PCGG , which held that, as the writ of sequestration is merely a conservatory measure, thus, provisional and temporary in character, the final adjudication of the Court, which finally disposed the sequestered shares, rendered the writ unnecessary. The POTC and PHILCOMSAT aver that while the PCGG has the power to sequester, such power is merely provisional. The POTC and PHILCOMSAT cite Executive Order No. 1, Section 3, which grants the PCGG the power to take over sequestered properties provisionally, such that, after the sequestered properties have been finally
G.R. No. 103797 - PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION), AEROCOM INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, INC., POLYGON INVESTORS AND MANAGERS, INC., TRADERS ROYAL BANK, HECTOR P. CORPUS, AND SEVERINO P. BUAN, JR..
G.R. No. 103797 -
CaseG.R. NOS. 159104-05 - RODOLFO M. CUENCA AND CUENCA INVESTMENT CORP., VS. THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENT REALTY CORP., AND UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS CORP..
G.R. NOS. 159104-05 -
CaseG.R. NO. 129406 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION) AND ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. NO. 129406 -