Case Digest (G.R. No. L-79484)
Facts:
Kant Kwong and Yim Kam Shing v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 79484, December 07, 1987, the Supreme Court En Banc, Melencio‑Herrera, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners Kant Kwong and Yim Kam Shing are foreign nationals and official representatives of Hong Kong–Chinese investors who owned 33% of the shares in two Philippine garment corporations: De Soleil Apparel Manufacturing Corporation and American Inter‑Fashion Manufacturing Corporation. On March 25, 1986 the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered those firms on the theory that the Marcoses controlled the remaining shareholdings through nominees. The PCGG issued hold‑orders against the petitioners to prevent their departure from the country.
On February 13, 1987, respondent Secretary Ramon A. Diaz (PCGG) notified the Minister of Public Information that petitioners were included in the PCGG’s hold‑order list. On March 12, 1987 petitioners filed with the PCGG an "Urgent Motion to Lift Hold‑Order" and requested a hearing set for March 16; the PCGG did not calendar a hearing. By Order dated March 19, 1987 (signed by Commissioner Mary Concepcion Bautista and Secretary Diaz), the PCGG denied the motion, reciting as grounds alleged business malpractices and acts that, the PCGG said, frustrated its investigation and obstructed corporate operations (e.g., withholding documents, delay in cashing letters of credit, failure to remit payments, obstructing release of funds, and attempts to discredit the officer‑in‑charge).
Petitioners filed an original action for mandamus in the Supreme Court seeking to compel the PCGG to lift the hold‑orders as unlawful and violative of their right to travel. Prior to the decision on the present petition, on September 24, 1987 this Court had, upon an urgent motion by petitioner Yim Kam Shing, temporarily lifted the hold‑order against him to allow him to travel to Hong Kong for urgent medical treatment. The PCGG relied on Executive Order No. 1 (Feb. 28, 1986) creating the PCGG and on its Rules and Regulations (April 11, 1986), which authorize issuance of writs of sequestration and hold‑orders; the PCGG Rules define a hold‑order as temporarily preventing a person from leaving the country where his departure would prejudice or obstruct the Commission’s task and provide that a hold‑order is valid for a maximum of six months unless extended by the Commission en banc. The PCGG also pointed to the institution of civil proceedings (Republic v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al., Civil Case No. 0002 filed in the Sandiganbayan on July 16, 1987) ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is mandamus the proper remedy to compel the PCGG to lift the hold‑orders against petitioners?
- Were the hold‑orders validly maintained against petitioners given the PCGG Rules’ six‑month limit and subsequent developments (including appointment of an officer‑in‑charge and the filing of civil proceedings in the Sandiganbayan)?
- Did the continuation of the hold‑orders without adequate hearing or fresh justification constitute gross abuse of discretion and violate pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)