G.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..

Ruling

Accordingly, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiffs and as against defendants IRC and UHC, who are hereby ordered to immediately return and reconvey to plaintiffs all of the shares of stocks and stock subscriptions in Philippine National Construction Corporation (formerly known as Construction and Development [Corporation] of the Philippines), Resort Hotels Corporation and Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation, including those transferred by plaintiffs to UHC such as the 24,780,746 shares in CDCP/PNCC, the 468,062 shares in Resort Hotels Corporation and the 23,748,932 shares in Sta. Ines Melale Forest Products Corporation plus all fruits thereof such as stock and cash dividends and stock splits. The plaintiffs prayer for damages and attorneys fees are hereby DENIED. The counterclaim of defendants UHC and IRC for damages and attorneys fees is hereby DENIED for lack of evidence. The appointment of JAIME C. LAYA as Receiver of defendant UHC is hereby MAINTAINED until finality of this Decision and full execution of this Decision or full compliance herewith by defendants. [24] From the adverse Decision, respondents IRC and UHC appealed to the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 60338. On the other hand, after the trial court denied respondent PCGGs Motion for Reconsideration [25] through its July 22, 1998 Order, [26] PCGG brought the instant case before this Court in G.R. No. 13516. Said PCGG special civil action was remanded to the CA and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 49686 entitled Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Hon. Fernando V. Gorospe, as Presiding Judge RTC of Makati City, Branch 61, et al. In the petition before the CA, PCGG also assailed the April 20, 1998 Order of the trial court denying its motion for intervention in Civil Case No. 91-2721. Thus, the petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 49686) and the appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 60338) were consolidated. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals Through its assailed Decision, the appellate court reversed the Makati City RTCs Decision, granted the petition filed by PCGG, and dismissed the instant case for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court ratiocinated that the Sandiganbayan had exclusive jurisdiction to hear the instant case involving petitioners and the sequestered respondents corporations. It held that the recourse of parties, petitioners in the instant case, who wish to challenge respondent PCGGs acts or orders, would be to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Executive Order No. (EO) 14 issued on May, 7, 1986, [27] which ordained that this body alone had the original jurisdiction over all of respondent PCGGs cases, civil or criminal, citing PCGG v. Peña [28] as authority. The appellate court applied Republic v. Sandiganbayan [29] on the issue of sequestration by respondent PCGG of UHC, CIC, and CDCP (now PNCC) against petitioner Cuenca, the Marcos spouses, their relatives, friends, and colleagues. The CA applied the doctrine of conclusiveness of ju