Case Digest (G.R. No. 186717)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 186717)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council v. Jocelyn I. Bolante, et al., G.R. No. 186717; and Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council v. Hon. Winlove M. Dumayas, et al., G.R. No. 190357, April 17, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.In 2005 the Philippine National Bank furnished the Anti‑Money Laundering Council (AMLC) suspicious transaction reports implicating accounts of Livelihood Corporation (LIVECOR), Molugan Foundation (Molugan) and Assembly of Gracious Samaritans (AGS), reflecting transfers totalling millions that appeared unsupported by lawful business purpose and disproportionate to the foundations’ capitalization. Senate Committee Report No. 54 and a Commission on Audit (COA) audit later documented alleged irregularities in the release and use of P728 million fertilizer funds and identified former Undersecretary of Agriculture Jocelyn I. Bolante as centrally involved; Bolante had also been designated acting chairman of LIVECOR earlier.
The AMLC adopted Resolutions Nos. 75 and 90 finding probable cause that various accounts were related to the “fertilizer fund scam” and authorized ex parte petitions for bank inquiry orders; the RTC granted an ex parte bank inquiry order in AMLC SP Case No. 06‑003 (six accounts). After this Court’s decision in Republic v. Eugenio (Feb. 14, 2008) held that a bank inquiry order could not be issued ex parte under the then‑text of Section 11 of R.A. 9160, the AMLC sought a different remedial path and filed an ex parte petition in the Court of Appeals for a freeze order to preserve accounts (CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00014), which resulted in a 20‑day freeze later extended to cover 31 accounts until 20 December 2008.
Believing Eugenio to be a “supervening event,” the AMLC also filed AMLC Case No. 07‑001 in the RTC seeking a bank inquiry into 70 accounts; the RTC issued an order allowing inquiry. Later, AMLC Resolution No. 5 authorized a new freeze petition covering 24 accounts and the AMLC filed CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00024 seeking a freeze order (effective 4 Feb. 2009). After summary hearings the CA (First Division) denied the Republic’s application to extend the 4 Feb. 2009 freeze order (Resolution dated 27 Feb. 2009), concluding there was forum shopping and that the petition was effectively an impermissible extension of the freeze already extended in CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00014 beyond the allowable period under Section 53 of A.M. No. 05‑11‑04‑SC.
While G.R. No. 186717 (Rule 45) sought review of the CA denial, events in the RTC produced a separate challenge: in AMLC Case No. 07‑001 the RTC (Branch 59, Makati) issued a Resolution dated 3 July 2009 denying the AMLC’s application for a bank inquiry into 76 deposits and investments for lack of probable cause; its Order of 13 November 2009 denied reconsideration. The Republic filed G.R. No. 190357 (Rule 65) to challenge the RTC’s determinations. The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions, issued a Status Quo Ante Order on 25 March 2009, required memoranda, and solicited a joint manifestation from the AMLC and the Ombudsman regarding related Sandiganbayan plunder cases; the Ombudsman’s filing showed Bolante was named in a plunder case but most other account holders were not.
Issues:
- Did the Republic commit forum shopping in filing CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00024 before the Court of Appeals?
- Did the Regional Trial Court commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to allow an inquiry into the 76 deposits and investments of respondents?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)