Case Digest (G.R. No. 152375)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, Supreme Court En Banc, Brion, J., writing for the Court. The petition under Rule 65 challenges the Sandiganbayan’s February 7, 2002 resolution denying the Republic’s Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (Re: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane) (the “3rd motion”).
The petitioner is the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General; the respondents are the individuals and heirs sued in Civil Case No. 0009 (including the substituted heirs of Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., members of the Marcos family, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Potenciano Ilusorio’s heirs). The underlying action, docketed before the Sandiganbayan as Civil Case No. 0009 (filed July 22, 1987), seeks reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages for alleged illegal acquisition and manipulation of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) shareholdings.
An array of incident cases arose from Civil Case No. 0009, including Civil Case No. 0130 (Victor Africa v. PCGG), which concerned PCGG orders directed at Africa regarding sequestered ETPI shares. On April 15, 1993 the Sandiganbayan ordered consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 with several incidents (stating they “shall henceforth be consolidated and treated as mere incidents of said Civil Case No. 0009”). After consolidation, the petitioner took the deposition of Maurice V. Bane (former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI) on October 23–24, 1996 before the Philippine Consul General in London, stating that the deposition would be used in Incident Case No. 0130 (G.R. No. 107789) “as well as in the main case of Civil Case No. 0009.”
At trial in Civil Case No. 0009 the petitioner filed a motion (1st motion, Jan. 21, 1998) to adopt testimony and depositions from incident cases, but the Sandiganbayan, by resolution promulgated April 1, 1998, denied adoption insofar as the petitioner sought to adopt Maurice Bane’s deposition (because the deponent was not available for cross-examination in that court). The petitioner did not timely seek reconsideration of the 1998 resolution. The petitioner later made a Formal Offer of Evidence on December 14, 1999 but inadvertently omitted the Bane deposition.
Thereafter the petitioner filed (a) an Urgent Motion/Request for Judicial Notice (2nd motion, Feb. 21, 2000) seeking either reopening to introduce the Bane deposition or judicial notice of its contents; the Sandiganbayan denied that motion on August 21, 2000, holding judicial notice inappropriate and that the deposition’s admission must follow ordinary offer procedures. Reconsideration was denied April 3, 2001. The petitioner then filed the Motion to Admit Supplemental Offer of Evidence (3rd motion) on November 16, 2001; the Sandiganbayan denied it by th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition filed within the 60‑day period prescribed for certiorari under Rule 65?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that its April 1, 1998 resolution had attained finality?
- Was the petitioner’s 3rd motion a prohibited motion for reconsideration or otherwise barred by procedural rules?
- Did the Sandiganbayan gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the case to admit the Bane deposition?
- Is the Bane deposition admissible in Civil Case No. 0009 under Section 4, Rule 23 (Rule 23, Sec. 4(c)) alone or in relation to Section 4...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)