Title
Africa vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 124478
Decision Date
Mar 11, 1998
PCGG sequestered ETPI shares; Victor Africa ousted, filed suit. Sandiganbayan dismissed case as moot, lacking jurisdiction over non-sequestered shares. Supreme Court upheld dismissal, citing wrong remedy and mootness.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177611)

Procedural Background

The petition for certiorari, filed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, sought to annul the Sandiganbayan's resolutions dated January 30, 1996, and March 29, 1996, which dismissed Civil Case No. 0146 and denied Africa's motion for reconsideration, respectively. The case under scrutiny involves actions taken by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), which sequestered the shares of the ETPI in 1986 as part of efforts to recover allegedly ill-gotten wealth from former President Ferdinand Marcos.

Events Leading to the Case

Following the initial sequestration of ETPI's shares in March 1986, the PCGG lifted its hold on 40% of the capital stock owned by Cable and Wireless Ltd., but maintained its grip on 60% represented by various Filipino shareholders, including individuals closely associated with the Marcos regime. In July 1987, the PCGG initiated proceedings for the reconveyance of the allegedly ill-gotten shares, leading to intense disputes over board control at ETPI, particularly during a stockholders meeting in January 1988.

Victor Africa's Claims

Victor Africa, claiming wrongful ousting from his positions at ETPI, filed a petition for injunction with the Supreme Court in June 1988. He argued that his removal was arbitrary, invalid, and detrimental to his livelihood and family. Despite attempts to secure a temporary restraining order to maintain his position, Africa faced actions from newly installed board members affiliated with the PCGG, which led to confrontations and further legal maneuvers, including accusations of contempt against PCGG officials.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings and Dismissal

Initially, the case was referred to the Sandiganbayan for factual determination, resulting in its re-docketing as Civil Case No. 0146. Africa's motions for summary judgment and document inspection were filed but ultimately denied. The case saw private respondents arguing that Africa lacked legitimate shareholder status and thus was not entitled to engage in discovery regarding corporate records.

Sandiganbayan's Resolutions

On January 30, 1996, the Sandiganbayan dismissed Civil Case No. 0146, asserting that Africa's petitions for injunction had become moot due to the consummation of the events sought to be enjoined, marking a definitive ruling on the ineffectiveness of Africa's claims based on jurisdictional grounds. The Court found that the private respondents, being directors elected from shares not subject to sequestration, were not within the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction regarding allegations of impropriety.

Africa's Arguments on Certiorari

In his subsequent petition for certiorari, Africa presented various allegations of grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan, contending it failed to properly consider the merits and circumstances of his case. He claimed that the dismissal neglected to separate claims against different respondents who were closely linked to the matters in question. However, the private respondents maintained that the legal basis for Africa’s claims was unfounded due to the prior resolutions lifting the sequestration order on the relevant shares.

Legal Basis for the Decision

In affirming the Sandiganbayan’s resolutions, the Supreme Court highlighted that Africa had pursued the incorrect legal

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.