G.R. No. 152375 - Republic vs. Sandiganbayan

On July 22, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines (through PCGG) filed Civil Case No. 0009 in Sandiganbayan for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages against Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, Potenciano Ilusorio, alleging illegal manipulation of the purchase of Cable & Wireless Limited’s shares in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI).
Victor Africa (son of Jose L. Africa) was not originally a party to Civil Case No. 0009.
The case generated several incidental cases, including Civil Case No. 0130.

In 1991, a stockholders’ dispute in ETPI gave rise to Civil Case No. 0130 (petition for certiorari by Victor Africa vs. PCGG).
On April 12, 1993, Sandiganbayan ordered the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 with Civil Case No. 0130 and other incidental cases.

On September 25, 1996, petitioner served notice on all parties in Civil Case No. 0009 (including Civil Case No. 0130) of its intent to take the oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane in London for use in both the incident and main cases.
On October 23–24, 1996, the deposition was taken before the Philippine Consul General; only Victor Africa appeared and cross-examined the deponent.

January 21, 1998 (1st motion): Petitioner moved to adopt witness testimony from incidents (including Bane’s) into Civil Case No. 0009; Sandiganbayan denied as to Bane (deponent not available for cross-examination) and granted as to other witnesses.
December 14, 1999: Petitioner filed its Formal Offer of Evidence but omitted Bane deposition by oversight.
February 21, 2000 (2nd motion): Petitioner moved to reopen its case to introduce Bane deposition or to take judicial notice of it; Sandiganbayan denied, deeming request “redundant” and not under Rule 129.
April 3, 2001: Sandiganbayan denied reconsideration of the 2000 Resolution.

November 16, 2001 (3rd motion): Petitioner again sought admission of Bane deposition.
February 7, 2002: Sandiganbayan denied the 3rd motion, holding the 1998 interlocutory resolution final, and refusing to reopen the case.
March 14, 2002: Petitioner filed this certiorari petition, alleging grave abuse of discretion by Sandiganbayan in refusing to admit the Bane deposition.

Respondents raised timeliness, argued the orders were final and not subject to certiorari, and contended the deposition was hearsay under Rule 130, requiring cross-examination.
Majority (7–7 tie) dismissed petition for lack of merit, holding deposition inadmissible under rules on evidence.
Justice Carpio dissented, urging grant of petition and admission of deposition.

Whether the petition was timely filed.
Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in treating its 1998 interlocutory resolution as final.
Whether consolidation of Civil Case No. 0130 with Civil Case No. 0009 merged the cases so that a deposition taken afterward is admissible in the main case.
Whether refusing to reopen the case to admit the Bane deposition constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Whether the Bane deposition is admissible under Rule 23 (depositions) and Rule 130 (prior testimony) or by judicial notice.