This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-11-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Like the remedies of "freeze order" and "provisional takeover" with which the PCGG has been equipped, sequestration is not meant to deprive the owner or possessor of his title or any right to his property and vest the same in the sequestering agency, the Government or any other person, as these can be done only for the causes and by the processes laid down by law.[85] These remedies "are severe, radical measures taken against apparent, ostensible owners of property, or parties against whom, at the worst, there are merely prima facie indications of having amassed 'ill-gotten wealth,' indications which must still be shown to lead towards actual facts in accordance with the judicial procedures of the land."[86] Considering that sequestration is not meant to create a permanent situation as regards the property subject thereof and subsists only until ownership is finally judicially determined,[87] it stands to reason that, upon its dissolution, the property sequestered should likewise be returned to its owner/s. Indeed, sequestration cannot be allowed interminably and forever, if it is to adhere to constitutional due process.[88] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| (c) G.R. No. 180702 (petition for review on certiorari), to appeal the decision promulgated on November 28, 2007.[7] | |||||
|
2007-10-05 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| Through its assailed Decision, the appellate court reversed the Makati City RTC's 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 PCGG's 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 PCGG's 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. | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The foregoing is nonetheless true with respect to the case against the other petitioner corporations (except MFC). There is no cause of action against them. Not only because the complaint does not, as to them, spell out specific illegal acts and omissions committed by them, but also on account of our ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,[53] or what subsequent opinions would later refer to as The Final Dispositions case, which proscribes their being impleaded in the case. Thus:As regards actions in which the complaints seek recovery of defendants' shares of stock in existing corporations (e.g., San Miguel Corporation, etc.) because (they were) allegedly purchased with misappropriated public funds,... the impleading of said firms would clearly appear to be unnecessary. If warranted by the evidence, judgments may be handed down against the corresponding defendants divesting them of ownership of their stock, the acquisition thereof being illegal and consequently burdened with a constructive trust, and imposing on them the obligation of surrendering them to the Government. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| With regard to the third and fourth issues, petitioners argue that by virtue of this Court's ruling in Republic vs. Sandiganbayan,[11] the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the present case because it does not concern or involve the question of sequestration, freezing or provisional takeover of property by the government; following this Court's pronouncements in San Miguel Corporation vs. Kahn[12] and Holiday Inn (Phils) vs. Sandiganbayan[13] it can be seen that not all civil cases filed by or against the Republic through PCGG fall under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan; Lee assigned his shares in Mountain View to the Government, as such, the Republic merely became the stockholder of Mountain View; and in view of the doctrine that a corporation has its own personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, it must be Mountain View which should have filed the instant case as the real party-in-interest.[14] | |||||