Case Digest (G.R. No. 227960)
Facts:
The case involves Herminio T. Disini (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner") as the main party in a civil case initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). The civil complaint, filed on July 23, 1987, in the Sandiganbayan under Civil Case No. 0013, sought relief for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against Disini, Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos, and Rodolfo Jacob. Summons issued to Disini on July 29, 1987, went unserved due to his absent address. Several attempts to serve him resulted in failures, with the sheriff reporting back on September 4, 1987, and September 15, 1987, that the summons could not be delivered as the residence was occupied by another family.
As the years passed without progress, co-defendant Jacob filed a motion to dismiss the case against him for failure to prosecute. The Sandiganbayan dismissed Jacob
Case Digest (G.R. No. 227960)
Facts:
- In 1987, the Republic (through the PCGG) initiated a forfeiture action (Civil Case No. 0013) against Herminio T. Disini and other associated parties for the recovery of ill‐gotten wealth allegedly amassed through corruption, plunder, embezzlement, and related offenses.
- Service issues arose early on when summonses were repeatedly returned unserved because Disini was not residing at the address provided. Subsequent efforts by the Republic—including motions for leave to serve summons by publication and alias summons—were undertaken, and service by publication was eventually approved and carried out in an action in rem.
- Despite diligent efforts by the Republic, petitioner Disini was declared in default in 2002 for failing to file an answer to the validly served Amended Complaint.
- Over time, as the prolonged proceedings delayed a forfeiture decision—compounded by external pressure from a Swiss Federal Court regarding frozen bank accounts—Disini filed several motions seeking relief. On December 7, 2006, he moved to lift the default order and submit an answer on the ground that he was unaware of the case due to the alleged improper service.
- During the hearing on the Republic’s urgent motion (filed November 2006) to resolve pending motions, Disini’s counsel was present but not permitted to participate given his default status; the court set rigid deadlines for the respective parties’ filings.
- While his motion for lifting the default remained unresolved in the Sandiganbayan, Disini later filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (on December 22, 2006) and subsequently pursued further relief by re-filing a Second Motion to Lift the Default Order in the lower court, effectively seeking the same remedy from two different fora.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan abused its discretion by denying Disini’s Motion to Lift Default Order and by permitting the Republic to present evidence ex parte while Disini’s motion was still pending.
- Whether Disini’s filing of parallel remedies—specifically, the petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court while a motion for reconsideration and a subsequent motion to lift default were pending before the Sandiganbayan—amounted to forum‑shopping, thus constituting a prohibited judicial malpractice.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)