G.R. No. 111857 - Calpo vs. Sandiganbayan

During April and May 1986, writs of sequestration were issued by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) over shares held by various corporations in San Miguel Corporation (SMC), based on a prima facie determination that such shares were “ill‐gotten.”
The affected corporations promptly filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus (docketed as S.B. Case No. 0110) before the Sandiganbayan, arguing that the writs should have automatically been lifted if no judicial action was initiated within six (6) months from the Constitution’s effectivity pursuant to Section 26, Article XVIII.

Acting on the petition, the Sandiganbayan, in its resolution promulgated on 08 April 1992, declared that the writs of sequestration were automatically lifted as of 02 August 1987.
In response, the PCGG filed its own petition for certiorari and mandamus, along with an application for a temporary restraining order, before the Supreme Court (in G.R. No. 104850), contesting the Sandiganbayan resolution.

On 20 July 1993, the Supreme Court consolidated G.R. No. 104850 with several similar petitions (including G.R. Nos. 96073, 103879, 104065, among others) related to the sequestration of shares and issues of “ill‐gotten wealth.”
Following a restraining order related to 43 corporations, the SMC Board experienced changes, notably with private respondent Estelito Mendoza remaining on the Board for the 1992–1993 term, while the PCGG-nominated individuals were prevented from exercising their voting rights.

Private respondents (members of the Cojuangco group) filed a petition for quo warranto (docketed as S.B. Case No. 0150) before the Sandiganbayan, contending that:

PCGG-nominated directors were unqualified because they did not own at least 5,000 shares as required by the SMC by-laws.
The PCGG had no authority to exercise the voting rights attached to the seized shares.

PCGG, in its defense, argued that the petition was improper because the substantive issue regarding the right to vote the disputed shares was already pending before the Supreme Court in related cases (notably G.R. Nos. 104850, 96073, etc.).
The Sandiganbayan, in its resolution dated 28 September 1993, denied PCGG’s motion to suspend the quo warranto proceedings on the ground that the issues in the sequestration cases were independent of the issues raised in the quo warranto petition.

While the petitions were pending, the Supreme Court issued an order restraining the private corporations from voting the disputed shares at the upcoming stockholders’ meeting scheduled for 19 April 1994.
The PCGG petitioners contended that the quo warranto proceedings should either be dismissed outright or suspended to avoid rendering moot the related sequestration cases still before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Sandiganbayan was justified in denying the PCGG’s motion to suspend the quo warranto proceedings pending the resolution of related sequestration cases (G.R. Nos. 104850, 96073, etc.).
Whether the issue of the qualification of PCGG nominees to sit in the SMC Board is inherently tied to the sequestration cases, thus warranting a suspension or dismissal of the quo warranto complaint.

Whether the constitutional requirement under Section 26, Article XVIII, which mandates the commencement of judicial action within six (6) months, necessitates the formal impleading of corporations as defendants in actions concerning “ill‐gotten wealth.”
Whether a mere annexation of corporate names to complaints suffices to satisfy the constitutional mandate for a “corresponding judicial action or proceeding.”