Case Digest (G.R. No. 154522)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council v. Cabrini Green & Ross, Inc., et al., G.R. Nos. 154522, 154694, 155554, 155711, May 05, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.The Anti‑Money Laundering Council (AMLC), acting for the Republic of the Philippines, issued a number of freeze orders under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 9160 (RA 9160, the Anti‑Money Laundering Act of 2001) against various bank accounts of the respondents after finding a prima facie connection between the accounts and unlawful activity. Under the original Section 10 the AMLC’s freeze was effective immediately but only for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days and could be extended “upon order of the court”; the provision also limited which courts could enjoin a freeze order.
Before the initial 15‑day period lapsed, the AMLC sought extensions of its freeze orders by filing petitions with the Court of Appeals (CA), believing that the CA’s power to issue TROs or injunctions against freeze orders carried with it authority to extend those freezes. The CA, however, dismissed the petitions in separate decisions, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under RA 9160 to extend AMLC freeze orders (decisions dated May 20, 2002; August 9, 2002; September 30, 2002; and October 15, 2002).
While these Rule 45 petitions from the CA rulings were pending in the Court (the AMLC invoked this Court’s review under Rule 45), Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9194 on March 3, 2003 (effective March 23, 2003), which amended Section 10 of RA 9160 to expressly confer on the Court of Appeals the power to issue freeze orders and to extend them (the amendment also extended the AMLC freeze period to twenty (20) days and stated that extensions are “by the court”). Section 12 of RA 9194 provided a transitory rule that existing AMLC freeze orders would remain in force for thirty (30) days after the Act’s effectivity unless extended by the CA.
Following the amendment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a “Very Urgent Motion to Remand” asking this Court to remand the pending Rule 45 petitions to the CA pursuant to RA 9194 and seeking a nationwide temporary restraining order (TRO) because the affected freezes would otherwise lapse by operation of law. On April 21, 2003 the Court issued a TRO maintaining existing freeze orders nationwide pending further orders. The OSG later informed the Court that on April 22, 2003 the CA had granted extension of the freeze orders in CA‑G.R. SP No. 69371 (the subject of G.R. No. 154694), prompting the OSG to move that that particular G.R. be dismissed as moot and th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether, under the amended law, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue and to extend the effectivity of freeze orders originally issued by the AMLC.
- Whether G.R. No. 154694 is moot in view of the Court of Appeals’ grant of extension of the freeze orders inv...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)