Case Digest (G.R. No. 112710)
Facts:
This case, G.R. No. 112710, involves the Republic of the Philippines as the petitioner and the Sandiganbayan (Second Division) alongside multiple respondents including Lucio C. Tan, Imelda R. Marcos, and various others, including corporate entities associated with Lucio Tan. The events that led to the filing of the petition began with the Republic filing a complaint on July 17, 1987, against the aforementioned respondents. This complaint alleged that during their term, Ferdinand E. Marcos, the former President, and his wife Imelda engaged in corrupt practices to accumulate wealth, part of which involved agreements with Lucio Tan allowing Marcos to benefit financially from numerous enterprises.
On several specific instances referenced in the case, like the unlawful sale of DBP’s controlling interest in the Century Park Sheraton Hotel to an undercapitalized firm controlled by Tan, significant financial losses resulted from the actions of the Marcoses and Tan, exacerbated by the i
Case Digest (G.R. No. 112710)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Commission for Good Government, filed a complaint on July 17, 1987 in Sandiganbayan (SB Civil Case No. 0005) seeking reversion, reconveyance, restitution, accounting, and damages.
- The complaint was directed against 26 individuals and several corporations, alleging that former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife Imelda Marcos, in league with private respondent Lucio Tan and others, engaged in a systematic scheme to amass ill-gotten wealth through fraudulent transactions and unlawful business practices.
- Among the allegations were:
- An agreement whereby Marcos would acquire a 60% interest in Shareholdings, Inc.—which held controlling interests in companies owned by Tan.
- The payment of bribes and commissions to Marcos by Tan from 1980 to 1986 in exchange for governmental support for Tan’s business ventures.
- The use of other defendants as mere fronts or incorporators to conceal the illegal scheme.
- The unlawful acquisition of control in companies including a bank through questionable means, causing significant losses to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
- Pleadings and Amendments
- In December 1987, petitioner filed a "Manifestation and Motion" to expand certain allegations in the complaint; this was granted on December 11, 1987.
- An Expanded Complaint was filed on January 25, 1988.
- Responses:
- In June 1988, defendant Don M. Ferry filed his answer.
- In March 1990, respondent Lucio Tan filed his answer, while the remaining individual defendants (except a few) also filed separate answers.
- On August 19, 1991, petitioner filed a "Motion for Leave to Amend and for Admission of Second Amended Complaint" which proposed:
- Substituting defendant Ferdinand Marcos with his estate (as Marcos had died pendente lite).
- Including additional defendants such as Panfilo O. Domingo, Estate of Central Bank Governor Licaros, and Cesar Zalamea.
- Impleading 42 corporations alleged to be owned or controlled by respondents associated with Tan.
- The motion was granted by the Sandiganbayan on April 2, 1992, with summons issued to the newly-impleaded defendants (other than the substitution for Marcos).
- Pre-Discovery and Discovery Motions
- On May 25, 1992, the 42 corporate defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement or bill of particulars. This was adopted by other additional defendants on June 18, 1992.
- Respondents such as Panfilo Domingo were served summons and later moved to obtain more detailed complaint documents.
- Motion for Deposition
- In June 1993, petitioner filed a “Motion for Leave to Take the Deposition of Rolando C. Gapud Upon Oral Examination in the Crown Colony of Hongkong.”
- Petitioner sought the deposition of Mr. Gapud, a former financial adviser to President Marcos and his wife, asserting that his testimony was critical to establish the unlawful business practices of Marcos, Tan, and their associates.
- It was contended that Mr. Gapud, having executed several affidavits in 1987 and currently residing abroad out of fear for his safety, would only be available via deposition.
- The petitioner argued that under Rule 24, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which allows depositions once jurisdiction is acquired over “any” defendant, there was no need to wait for all defendants to file their answers.
- Individual and corporate respondents, including Lucio Tan and Panfilo Domingo (joined by Cesar Zalamea), opposed the motion on various grounds, asserting:
- The taking of the deposition was premature as not all defendants had been served with summons or had filed their answers.
- The absence of “special or unusual circumstances” to warrant early deposition.
- Potential prejudice to the defendants if the deposition were taken at that stage.
- Denial of the Motion and the Resulting Petition
- In a Resolution dated August 23, 1993, the Sandiganbayan denied the petitioner’s motion to take Mr. Gapud’s deposition.
- A subsequent reconsideration of this resolution was likewise denied on October 22, 1993.
- The petitioner then elevated the issue through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, contending that:
- The court erred for requiring that all defendants be served and have filed their answers before allowing the deposition.
- There was a failure of the lower court to recognize the special circumstances justifying an urgent deposition of Mr. Gapud.
- No evidence showed Mr. Gapud would be unavailable for trial testimony.
Issues:
- Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in requiring that all defendants be served and have filed their answers before permitting the taking of Mr. Gapud’s deposition.
- The petitioner argued that jurisdiction was already acquired over some defendants, and thus, Rule 24’s provisions allowed deposition without all responses.
- Whether there exist “special or unusual circumstances” that justify taking Mr. Gapud’s deposition at that point in time.
- Petitioner maintained that Mr. Gapud’s impending unavailability due to safety concerns and his cooperation with the government created an exceptional situation.
- Whether the denial of the motion for leave to take deposition constitutes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent court.
- The petitioner contended that delaying Mr. Gapud’s deposition would impair the presentation of evidence critical to establishing the illicit activities of the Marcoses and their cronies.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)