Case Digest (G.R. No. 147062-64)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. COCOFED et al. and Ballares et al., Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. and the Sandiganbayan (First Division), G.R. Nos. 147062-64, December 14, 2001, Supreme Court En Banc, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner PCGG sought certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside the Sandiganbayan First Division’s February 28, 2001 order in Sandiganbayan Civil Case Nos. 0033‑A, 0033‑B and 0033‑F which authorized registered stockholders (including COCOFED, Ballares and Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.) to vote United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) shares registered in their names at a stockholders’ meeting; the order also required nominal bonds. The PCGG prayed for a TRO/preliminary injunction and argued grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
The dispute traces to post‑EDSA sequestrations under Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, and 14. PCGG filed, on July 31, 1987, an action in the Sandiganbayan (Case No. 0033) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting and restitution of UCPB shares alleged to have been acquired with coco levy funds. On November 15, 1990 the Sandiganbayan lifted the sequestration for alleged failure to implead certain private respondents; PCGG sought relief in this Court in G.R. No. 96073. The Supreme Court initially enjoined a UCPB election, later allowed it (March 3, 1992), then on February 16, 1993 recalled that allowance and restored the status quo so PCGG could continue to vote the sequestered shares pending resolution.
On January 23, 1995 this Court in G.R. No. 96073 rendered a final decision nullifying the Sandiganbayan lifting of sequestration and held explicit impleading unnecessary where the remedy could be directed against the shares themselves; PCGG thereafter subdivided Case No. 0033 into Cases 0033‑A to 0033‑H. In February 2001 the UCPB board received a demand for a shareholders’ meeting and COCOFED et al. filed a Class Action Omnibus Motion (Feb. 23, 2001) in the Sandiganbayan seeking to enjoin PCGG from voting the sequestered UCPB shares. The Sandiganbayan heard the motion and issued the challenged February 28, 2001 order allowing registered holders to vote.
PCGG filed a Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court. The case was initially raffled to the Third Division (which,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the February 28, 2001 order allowing respondents to vote UCPB shares registered in their names?
- Did the Sandiganbayan violate petitioner’s right to due process by taking cognizance of the Class Action Omnibus Motion despite alleged lack of sufficient notice and by issuing the preliminary injunction without necessity or urgency?
- Substantively, who may vote the sequestered UCPB shares while the Sandiganbayan cases are pending — the registered holders or the PCGG (representing government), particularly w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)