Case Summary (G.R. No. 247982)
Petitioner
Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. sought relief through a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, alleging that his constitutional rights to due process and a speedy disposition of cases were violated by the Sandiganbayan’s inordinate delay.
Respondents
The Sandiganbayan (anti-graft court) and the PCGG represent the government’s interest in recovering alleged ill-gotten assets.
Key Dates
• 1986: Creation of the PCGG (E.O. Nos. 1 and 2) and vesting of jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan (E.O. Nos. 14 and 14-A)
• July 31, 1987: Filing of Civil Case No. 0033 before Sandiganbayan
• 1995–1999: Subdivision into eight cases (Nos. 0033-A to 0033-H) and filing of answers
• 1999–2003: Termination or suspension of pre-trial in various cases
• 2002–2016: PCGG’s motions for partial summary judgment repeatedly denied
• 2013–2017: Petitioner’s motions to dismiss and PCGG’s motions for reconsideration denied
• July 18, 2019: Filing of Petition for Prohibition in the Supreme Court
• April 28, 2021: Decision granting petition under the 1987 Constitution
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 16: Right to speedy disposition of cases
• Rule 65, Rules of Court: Writ of prohibition requisites
• Sandiganbayan jurisdiction under E.O. Nos. 1, 2, and 14
• 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequent Supreme Court circulars on pre-trial orders
Factual and Procedural Background
The original complaint filed in 1987 was amended and subdivided into eight separate suits in 1999. Six cases (0033-B, ‑C, ‑D, ‑E, ‑G, ‑H) remain pending against Cojuangco. Pre-trial hearings were either terminated or suspended by 2003. The PCGG pursued interlocutory motions for partial summary judgment in all but one case; each was denied only after years of pendency. Petitioner countered with motions to dismiss for deprivation of due process and delay, which were likewise denied. A motion to include the cases in the trial calendar filed in February 2018 went unacted upon.
Petition for Prohibition
Cojuangco invoked prohibition to enjoin further proceedings in the six cases, arguing that a combined delay of over 32 years without commencement of trial constitutes grave abuse of discretion and deprives him of his constitutional rights. He contended there is no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy.
PCGG’s Procedural Objections
The PCGG argued that the petition was a belated attempt to challenge final Sandiganbayan resolutions and amounted to forum shopping. It maintained that interlocutory orders are immutable once final and that petitioner failed to appeal or file for reconsideration in a timely manner.
Constitutional Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Under Section 16, Article III, all persons are entitled to a speedy disposition before judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. This right is broader than the guarantee of a speedy trial in criminal cases and applies to civil proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.
Burden of Proof and Delay Analysis
Applying Cagang v. Sandiganbayan guidelines, the Supreme Court shifted the burden to the Republic (PCGG) because the delay far exceeded any reasonable period. The government was required to justify the inordinate delay by showing (a) compliance with procedural steps, (b) complexity or volume of evidence necessitating the delay, and (c) absence of prejudice to the defendant.
Inordinate Delay and Prejudice
The Sandiganbayan took up to 14 years to resolve partial summary judgment motions and up to two years for reconsideration requests. N
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 247982)
Procedural History
- Petition for Prohibition filed under Rule 65 seeks to enjoin Sandiganbayan from further proceedings in Civil Case Nos. 0033-B to 0033-H
- Main contention: cases have been pending over 32 years without commencement of trial, violating petitioner’s rights to due process and speedy disposition
- Petition filed July 18, 2019; decided April 28, 2021 by Third Division, G.R. No. 247982
Antecedent Facts
- February 28, 1986: E.O. No. 1 creates PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth of Ferdinand Marcos and associates
- March 12, 1986: E.O. No. 2 expands PCGG mandate to assets of Imelda Marcos and others
- May 7, 1986 (E.O. No. 14, as amended): exclusive jurisdiction over ill-gotten wealth cases vested in Sandiganbayan
- July 31, 1987: PCGG files Civil Case No. 0033 vs. Cojuangco and others; complaint amended thrice, last on August 23, 1991
Subdivision of the Complaint
- March 24, 1999: Sandiganbayan Resolution subdivides Case No. 0033 into eight civil cases:
• 0033-A: First United Bank purchase/use
• 0033-B: Companies from coco levy funds
• 0033-C: Bugsuk Project and P998 M damages
• 0033-D: Oil mills account settlements
• 0033-E: Disbursement/dissipation of coco levy funds
• 0033-F: Acquisition of San Miguel shares
• 0033-G: Acquisition of Pepsi-Cola
• 0033-H: Behest loans and contracts - Cojuangco moved that 0033-A and 0033-F are resolved for him; petition concerns 0033-B, ‑C, ‑D, ‑E, ‑G, ‑H
Progress of the Subject Cases
- PCGG subdivided complaints filed between February 27 and May 12, 1995
- Petitioner’s answers filed June/July 1999; pre-trial briefs in early 2000
- Pre-trial hearings terminated for 0033-C (2000), 0033-D (2000), 0033-E (2003)
- Pre-trial in 0033-B, ‑G, ‑H suspended without resumption; no pre-trial order issued thereafter
PCGG’s Motions for Partial Summary Judgment and Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions
- PCGG filed motions for partial summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings in B, C, D, E, G between 2002–2006
- Sandiganbayan denied all such motions by resolutions dated 2006–2016
- No subsequent trial dates set; proceedings stalled on interlocutory motions
Petitioner’s Motions to Dismiss and Sandiganbayan’s Denials
- Petitioner moved to dismiss cases (except 0033-G) for violation of due process and speedy disposition in 2013–2015
- Sandiganbayan denied motions in 2014 and 2017; Civil Case No. 0033-C motion remains unresolved
Petitioner’s Efforts to Procure Trial Calendar Inclusion
- February 2, 2018: petitioner formally moves inclusion of subject cases in Sandiganbayan trial calendar
- Motion ignored; no action by Sandiganbayan