Anda di halaman 1dari 2

PCGG v Sandiganbayan and a long list of companies (Berna)

GR Nos 102370-71, June 15, 1992


Padilla, J.

Facts
- In 1986, the PCGG issued orders for the sequestration of the San Miguel
shares of the respondent companies. This was done under the Freedom
Constitution, allowing the President to recover ill-gotten properties of the
Marcoses and their supporters by sequestration or freezing of assets and
accounts.
- In 1987, the PCGG filed an action with the Sandiganbayan against Eduardo
Cojuanco Jr, Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos and several other individuals for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting and restitution of alleged ill-gotten wealth
with damages, consisting of funds and other properties which defendants
acquired and accumulated in breach of trust of their fiduciary obligations. (Civil
Case 0033)
- In 1990, the respondent companies filed an action for certiorari, prohibition
and injunction with the Sandiganbayan, seeking the lifting of writs of
sequestration over their shares, claiming it was void for failure to comply with
the constitutional requirement that judicial action must have been filed within 6
months from the ratification of said Constitution. (Civil Case 0110)
- The PCGG filed an answer opposing the writ of preliminary injunction in Civil
Case 0110. It also amended the complaint in Civil Case 0033 to include 80
additional defendants, including respondent companies in this case. The
resolution of the motion for preliminary injunction of respondent companies was
held in abeyance. The trial proceeded and respondent companies presented
their evidence.
- PCGG moved to consolidate these cases, but the motion was opposed. The
Sandiganbayan justified this with five reasons. (1) The issues in the case were
different. In one, was there a prima facie case to warrant the sequestration of
the petitioners’ SMC shares of stock and if they should remain sequestered
notwithstanding judicial action was not filed in accordance with the constitution.
The other case’s issue was whether the properties of the defendants are ill-
gotten wealth. (2) The second reason was that the case only involved shares of
stock in San Miguel, whereas CC 0033 included various properties like lands,
houses, motor vehicles, airplanes, residential lots etc. (3) The third reason was
CC0110 was a case for certiorari, prohibition and injunction against the PCGG.
CC033 is an action for reconveyance, reversion, etc. (4) Fourth, the parties were
not identical since the 43 defendants in CC0110 was only among the more than
a hundred defendants in CC0033. (5) Last, records show petitioners already
presented their evidence in CC0110. CC0033 has not yet passed the pre-trial
conference stage.
- PCGG filed a petition with the SC.

Issue and Held: Can the case be consolidated? NO.

Ratio:
The issues are not identical even though the facts and circumstances are
intertwined. The resolution of the issue on the validity of the sequestration of the
SMC shares registered in the name of respondent companies will not prevent PCGG
from pursuing the case for recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth from respondent
companies.

The object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, guard against oppression


or abuse, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court
and save unnecessary costs and expense. Where a case has been already partially
tried before one judge, the consolidation of the same with another related case
pending before another judge makes consolidation not mandatory, a the second
judge would have no opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

IN CC0110, the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan has partially heard the case.
Respondent already rested its case. To consolidate with CC0033 would only delay
the whole proceeding because the reconveyance case was only pretrial.

Petition Dismissed

Anda mungkin juga menyukai