Title
Disini vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. 205172
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2021
The Republic of the Philippines sued Herminio Disini for amassing $50.5M in commissions as a Marcos associate during the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant project. The Supreme Court found Disini liable for ill-gotten wealth, awarding P1B in damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205172)

Petitioner

Herminio T. Disini (substituted by heir Herminio Angel E. Disini, Jr., upon Disini’s death).

Respondent

Republic of the Philippines, through PCGG and OSG.

Key Dates

· 1976 – BNPP contract awarded to Westinghouse (main contractor) and Burns & Roe (architect-engineer).
· July 23, 1987 – Republic’s complaint filed for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, and 14-A (1986).
· April 11, 2012 – Sandiganbayan Decision declares Disini’s commissions ill-gotten and orders reconveyance of US$50,562,500.
· October 24, 2012 – Sandiganbayan Resolution denies motions for partial reconsideration.
· June 15, 2021 – Supreme Court Decision under 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

· 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decisions).
· EO No. 1 (1986): Creation of PCGG to recover Marcos-era ill-gotten wealth.
· EO Nos. 2, 14, 14-A (1986): Freezing of assets; commencement of civil suits in Sandiganbayan; civil recovery by preponderance of evidence.
· PCGG Rules and Regulations: Definition of “ill-gotten wealth” (commissions from government contracts).
· Rules of Court on evidence: Best Evidence Rule (Rule 130), authentication of private documents (Rule 132), Rule 45 limitation to questions of law.

Antecedents

The Republic alleged that Disini leveraged his close relationship with President Marcos to secure the award of the BNPP contract to Westinghouse and Burns & Roe, in exchange for commissions—3% of the Westinghouse contract price and 10% of the Burns & Roe contract price. The plant remains inoperable. No contracts or commission agreements were produced at trial; Disini was declared in default, and the Republic presented ex parte testimonies and documentary photocopies.

Procedural Background

· Disini remained largely absent; summons unserved and by publication, leading to default in 2010.
· PCGG presented witnesses Lourdes Magno, Rodolfo Jacob, Danilo Daniel, Angelo Manahan, Rafael Sison, Cristina Beranilla, Ricardo Paras III, Jesus P. Disini, and Jesus Vergara; and deposition of Rolando Gapud.
· Documentary evidence comprised numerous photocopied exhibits.
· Sandiganbayan ruled for the Republic, declaring $50,562,500 in commissions ill-gotten and ordering reconveyance; it dismissed other damage claims.
· Both parties’ motions for partial reconsideration were denied.
· Disini filed a Rule 45 petition raising mainly evidentiary and constitutional issues.

Issues

  1. Validity of PCGG cause of action under EO Nos. 1, 2, 14, 14-A.
  2. Existence of a civil cause of action to reconvey $50,562,500.
  3. Authentication and probative value of Exhibit E-9 (tabulation of commissions).
  4. Sufficiency of evidence to prove:
    a. Existence of Westinghouse and Burns & Roe contracts and commission agreements.
    b. Actual receipt and amount of commissions by Disini.
  5. Alleged violation of constitutional due process (Art. VIII, Sec. 14).
  6. Timeliness of the petition.

Cause of Action for Recovery of Ill-Gotten Wealth

· EO Nos. 1 and 2 (Freedom Constitution base) charged PCGG with recovering “ill-gotten wealth” from Marcos, his associates and nominees.
· EO Nos. 14 and 14-A authorized civil suits in Sandiganbayan, to be proven by preponderance of evidence.
· PCGG Rules define “ill-gotten wealth” to include commissions from government contracts.
· The Republic’s complaint alleges Disini’s unjust enrichment by receiving commission kickbacks in breach of public trust and causing grave prejudice to the State.
· Supreme Court holds that the Republic has a clear cause of action under the cited EOs and the 1987 Constitution.

Proof of Contracts and Commission Agreements

· Best Evidence Rule requires original contracts when the contents are at issue.
· Exception for proof of existence, execution or delivery of a writing without reference to its terms.
· Testimonies of Vergara and Jacob—based on personal knowledge—established:
­ Westinghouse negotiated and executed an SSR agreement with Disini for a 3% commission.
­ Burns & Roe entered into a commission agreement with Disini’s company Technosphere (a Herdis subsidiary) for 10%.
­ Disini’s role consisted solely in influencing Marcos to award the BNPP contracts to these firms.
· Supreme Court affirms sufficiency of these testimonies to establish the existence of contracts and commission agreements.

Testimonial Evidence on Receipt of Commissions

· Vergara and Jacob corroborated that commissions accrued upon contract signing in February 1976 and were remitted to Disini through Herdis, Asia Industries, and offshore accounts.
· Jacob personally arranged payments first through Swiss accounts under a Rene Pasche nominee, later via Philippine International Corporate Bank accounts.
· Majority of documentary evidence (photocopies) inadmissible, but narratives of credible witnesses bearing personal knowledge suffice under preponderance standard.
· Supreme Court finds preponderant evidence that Disini received substantial commissions constituting ill-gotten wealth.

Authentication and Admissibility of Exhibit E-9

· Exhibit E-9—a one-page tabulation of commissions on Disini stationery—was introduced via Manahan’s affidavit without authentication under Rule 132, Sec. 20.
· Best Evidence Rule barred admission of a mere photocopy where contents are the subject matter, absent justification under Rule 130 exceptions.
· Sandiganbayan improperly relied on Exhibit E-9 to compute the precise amount of commissions ($50,562,500).
· Disini’s default precluded his introduction of counter-evidence (e.g., Manahan’s deposition disavowing personal preparation of Exhibit E-9).

Preponderance of Evidence and Exceptions to Rule 45

· Rule 45 normally confines Supreme Court review to ques









...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.