REPUBLIC v. TUVERA ISSUES & RATIO.
G.R. No. 148246/ FEB 16, 2007/TINGA, J. /CSY 1. WON the case is barred by res judicata - NO
TOPIC RA 3016 Anti Graft Law
PETITIONERS Republic of the Philippines
RESPONDENTS Juan C. Tuvera, Victor P. Tuvera and Twin Peaks Development Corp.
DOCTRINE.
FACTS.
 A civil complaint for restitution and damages filed by the Republic against Pres. Marcos and
his longtime aide Juan Tuvera and his son Victor Tuvera and a corporation Victor owned.
 Twin Peaks was organized as a corporation for real estate business with five incorporating
stockholders including Victor Tuvera who owned 48%. He was the son of then Presidential
Executive Assistant of Pres. Marcos.
 Twin Peaks’ Vice President and Treasure Evelyn Fontanilla wrote a letter in behalf of Twin
Peaks which led to Pres. Marcos granting a Timber License Agreement (TLA) in favor of the
corporation.
 Twin Peaks was allowed to operate on 26,000 hectares of forest land with an annual allowable
cut of 60,000 cubic meters of timber, and 10,000 cubic meters of the mahogany species. This
resulted to Twin Peaks being able to engage in logging operations.
 Pres. Marcos was eventually ousted and Pres. Aquino assumed the presidency, where one of
the first acts that was established was the creation of the PCGG.
 The PCGG issued a Writ of Sequestration followed by a Mission Order on all assets,
properties, records, documents, and shares of stock of Twin Peaks on the ground that they
were ill-gotten wealth for having been acquired directly or indirectly through fraudulent and
illegal means.
 The PCGG filed in behalf of the Republic the Complaint subject of this Petition, where the
Republic sought to recover the funds allegedly acquired by the said parties in flagrant breach
of trust and obligations with grave abuse of right and power in violation of the laws and
Constitution.
 The Complaint specifically alleged that Juan Tuvera as the Presidential EA took advantage
of his relationship to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the Republic. It prayed that (1)
TLA No. 356 be reverted to the State or cancelled; (2) respondents be jointly and severally
ordered to pay P48 million as actual damages; and (3) respondents pay moral, temperate and
exemplary damages, litigation expenses, and treble judicial costs. It cited as grounds for relief,
gross abuse of official position and authority, breach of public trust and fiduciary obligations,
brazen abuse of right and power, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Constitution.
 Victor Tuvera and Twin Peaks claimed that Twin Peaks was awarded the TLA after its
Articles of Incorporation had been amended to include logging operations. They also claimed
the PCGG had no statutory authority to institute the action.
 The respondents alleged that the Director of Forest Development acted within the scope of
his authority and courts have no supervising power over the actions of the Director and
Secretary of the DENR.
 Juan Tuvera also denied the allegations of the Republic; he acted within the confines of his
duties and had perpetrated no unlawful acts.
 The Sandiganbayan issued a TRO against the PCGG requiring it to cease from further
implementing the Writ and MO
 The Sandiganbayan also granted a separate proceeding of the respondents from Pres.
Marcos who was already in exile, thus incurring delay in acquiring jurisdiction by the courts.
An examination of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolution shows that dismissal of the case on demurrer
to evidence was principally anchored on the Republic’s failure to show its right to relief because
of the existence of a prior judgment which consequently barred the relitigation of the same issue.
In other words, the Sandiganbayan did not dismiss the case on the insufficiency of the
Republic’s evidence nor on the strength of respondents’ evidence. Rather, it based its dismissal
on the existence of the Ysmael case which, according to it, would render the case barred by res
judicata.
--
[BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE YSMAEL CASE, as discussed by the SC]
Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co, was a grantee of the TLA which the Bureau of Forest Development
(BFR) cancelled. After cancellation, the TLA was awarded to Twin Peaks. Ysmael then sent a
letter to the OPres for reinstatement, which was denied. A P/Review was then filed before the
Court which held that the letters sent by Ysmael to OPres and DENR sought reconsideration of
the BFR’s order, and that Ysmael did not attack the administrative actions, thus making said
Order with the effect of a final judgment within the purview of res judicata doctrine.
--
For res judicata to serve as an absolute bar to a subsequent action, the following requisites must
concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on
the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
and parties; and (4) there must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of
subject matter, and of causes of action. When there is only identity of issues with no identity of
causes of action, there exists res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment.
In Ysmael, the case was between Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co., Inc. and the Deputy Executive
Secretary, the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources, the Director of the Bureau of
Forest Development and Twin Peaks Development and Realty Corporation. The present case,
on the other hand, was initiated by the Republic of the Philippines represented by the Office of
the Solicitor General. No amount of imagination could let us believe that there was an identity
of parties between this case and the one formerly filed by Felipe Ysmael Jr. & Co., Inc.
The Court in a number of cases considered the substantial identity of parties in the application
of res judicata in instances where there is privity between the two parties, as between their
successors in interest by title or where an additional party was simply included in the subsequent
case or where one of the parties to a previous case was not impleaded in the succeeding case.
The Court finds no basis to declare the Republic as having substantial interest as that of Felipe
Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. In the first place, the Republic’s cause of action lies in the alleged abuse
of power on respondents’ part in violation of R.A. No. 3019 and breach of public trust, which
in turn warrants its claim for restitution and damages. Ysmael, on the other hand, sought the
revocation of TLA No. 356 and the reinstatement of its own timber license agreement.
2. WON the Demurrer to Evidence may be granted – NO
The general rule is that upon the dismissal of the demurrer in the appellate court, the defendant
loses the right to present his evidence and the appellate court shall then proceed to render
judgment on the merits on the basis of plaintiff’s evidence.
It thus becomes the Court’s duty to rule on the merits of the complaint, duly taking into account NOTES.
the evidence presented by the Republic, and without need to consider whatever evidence the
Tuveras have, they having waived their right to present evidence in their behalf.

3. WON Juan Tuvera (& co-defendants) who was the Presidential EA took advantage of
his position to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the Republic vis-à-vis WON
there was a violation of RA 3019 - YES

Juan Tuvera did not keep his distance from Twin Peaks’ request for a TLA. He penned a
Memorandum as Presidential EA to direct the Director of Forestry to grant the same.

Delicadeza is not merely a stentorian term evincing a bygone ethic. It is a legal principle as
embodied by certain provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3 of R.A.
No. 3019 states in part:

“Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers.—In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized
by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be
unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the
latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
xxxx
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection
with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or
by any law from having any interest.”

The Memorandum signed by Juan Tuvera can be taken as proof that he “persuaded, induced or
influenced” the Director of Forestry to accommodate a timber license agreement in favor of
Twin Peaks, despite the failure to undergo public bidding, or to comply with the requisites for
the grant of such agreement by negotiation, and in favor of a corporation that did not appear
legally capacitated to be granted such agreement. The fact that the principal stockholder of Twin
Peaks was his own son establishes his indirect pecuniary interest in the transaction he appears
to have intervened in.

It may have been possible on the part of Juan Tuvera to prove that he did not persuade, induce
or influence the Director of Forestry or any other official in behalf of the timber license
agreement of Twin Peaks, but then again, he waived his right to present evidence to acquit
himself of such suspicion. Certainly, the circumstances presented by the evidence of the
prosecution are sufficient to shift the burden of evidence to Tuvera in establishing that he did
not violate the provisions of the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act in relation to the Twin
Peaks “request.” Unfortunately, having waived his right to present evidence, Juan Tuvera failed
to disprove that he failed to act in consonance with his obligations under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.

DECISION.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Sandiganbayan dated 23 May
2001 is REVERSED. Respondents Juan C. Tuvera, Victor P. Tuvera and Twin Peaks
Development Corporation are hereby ordered to jointly and severally pay to the Republic of the
Philippines One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos, as and for temperate damages, and One Million
(P1,000,000.00) Pesos, as and for exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.