Title
Supreme Court
Heirs of Marcos vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government
Case
G.R. No. 138894
Decision Date
Jul 20, 2006
Heirs of Marcos claimed ownership of shares ceded to PCGG; Sandiganbayan dismissed case due to unpaid filing fees, affirmed by SC, citing jurisdiction and prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 138894)

Background and Executive Order

On February 28, 1986, Executive Order No. 1 was issued by former President Corazon C. Aquino to create the PCGG. This body was tasked with recovering assets acquired by Ferdinand E. Marcos and affiliated parties through illegal means. The PCGG was granted extensive powers, including the authority to takeover business entities tied to Marcos and his associates.

Filing of Complaint and Docket Fees

On April 17, 1998, the petitioners filed a complaint in the Sandiganbayan, seeking a declaration of ownership of shares from Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) that had previously been agreed upon in a compromise settlement between former Ambassador Roberto S. Benedicto and the Republic of the Philippines. The petitioners only paid a diminutive filing fee of ₱4,850 but were later challenged by the Sandiganbayan regarding the insufficiency of this amount as outlined in the Revised Rules of Court.

Jurisdiction and Filing Fees Dispute

After the pre-trial on October 9, 1998, the Sandiganbayan placed proceedings in abeyance due to the petitioners’ alleged failure to pay the correct filing fees, which would amount to approximately ₱1,326,955 based on the nature of their claim regarding ownership of the shares. The Sandiganbayan issued an order on October 14, 1998, requiring the petitioners to justify the complaint's continuation in light of the outstanding fees.

Petitioners' Response and Legal Arguments

In their response, the petitioners contended that the imposition of the fee structure under current rule amendments would trespass on their substantive rights as guaranteed under earlier Presidential Decree No. 1606. They argued that specific sections of Republic Act (R.A.) Nos. 7975 and 8249 did not expressly revoke previous legislation granting them privilege against filing fees.

Sandiganbayan's Resolution

On February 15, 1999, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the petitioners’ case from its call docket for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure to meet the prescribed filing fee guidelines. The petitioners subsequently sought reconsideration of this dismissal, but their motion was denied on May 24, 1999.

Supreme Court Review and Decision

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Sandiganbayan's dismissal, referencing previous cases, including the 2000 Yuchengco v. Republic of the Philippines decision. The Court reiterated that payment of the appropriate docket fees is necessary for jurisdiction and that the changes in the law regarding filing fees in civil cases had altered the context significantly, as the Sandiganbayan's expansion to include civil jurisprudence indicated an implied amendment of prior rulings.

Rationale on Filing Fees and Prescription

The Court outlines that for a trial court to gain jurisdiction, both the filing of a complaint and the

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.