G.R. No. 167103 - Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan

A petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties was filed against petitioner Major General Carlos F. Garcia, his wife, and two sons by the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan.
The forfeiture case involved properties allegedly acquired after 25 February 1986, with the petition properly instituted under Republic Act No. 1379.

On 27 October 2004, the Ombudsman initiated the petition for forfeiture (Civil Case No. 0193).
On 17 November 2004, which was the last day for filing an answer, Garcia and his co-respondents instead filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction over special civil actions for forfeiture under RA 1379.
Concurrently, on the same day, petitioner Garcia filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 165835) contesting the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan which was later dismissed by the Court on 22 July 2005.

On 25 November 2004, while the petition for certiorari was pending, the Republic filed a motion seeking:

The expungement of the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that it contained a defective notice of hearing (set beyond the ten-day period provided by Sec. 5, Rule 15, Rule on Civil Procedure).
The declaration of Garcia and co-respondents as being in default for failing to file an answer within the prescribed reglementary period.
Permission for ex parte presentation of evidence.

Garcia and his co-respondents filed an Opposition on 30 November 2004 in response to the Republic’s motions.

Denied the Motion to Dismiss by Garcia on the ground that its notice of hearing was defective (set beyond the mandatory ten-day period).
Declared Garcia and the co-respondents in default, confirming that the Motion to Dismiss was merely a “scrap of paper” and did not toll the running of the period for filing an answer.
Set the case for ex parte presentation of evidence by the Republic.

On 25 January 2005, Garcia and co-respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Admit Attached Answer, arguing chiefly that:

The pendency of the earlier petition for certiorari had the effect of suspending the forfeiture proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
The technicalities employed by the Sandiganbayan in declaring default should yield to principles of judicial courtesy and due process.

On 3 February 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion for Reconsideration, holding that the proper remedy for relief from default was a motion under Sec. 3(b), Rule 9 – which Garcia’s motion failed to establish or comply with.

Petitioner Garcia subsequently filed the present Petition challenging the restorations of the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions dated 20 January 2005 and 3 February 2005.
Garcia asserted that:

His Motion to Dismiss was timely filed and thus effectively tolled the filing period for his answer.
The defective elements of the notice of hearing were immaterial under the due process principle, since it did inform him of the scheduled hearing and provided an opportunity to respond.
The subsequent handling by the Sandiganbayan gives him a fresh period (of five days) for filing his responsive pleading, meaning his being declared in default was unwarranted.

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over petitions for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379?
Which authority— the Office of the Ombudsman or the Solicitor General— is empowered to file such petitions for properties unlawfully acquired?

Whether the Motion to Dismiss filed by Garcia, despite being scheduled with a defective notice of hearing (set beyond the ten-day period required under Sec. 5, Rule 15), should toll the running of the period to file an answer.
Whether such a defective motion can be treated as substantively valid or must be considered a “mere scrap of paper.”

Whether Garcia’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Admit Attached Answer is the proper remedy under Sec. 3(b), Rule 9 for relief from being declared in default.
Whether the alleged application of principles of judicial courtesy and due process should allow for a reset of the filing period for the responsive pleading.