G.R. No. 176944 - Ligot vs. Republic

Retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto C. Ligot, Erlinda Y. Ligot, Paulo Y. Ligot, Riza Y. Ligot, and Miguel Y. Ligot

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council

February 1, 2005: Ombudsman recommends AMLC investigation
June 27, 2005: AMLC files ex parte application for freeze order
July 5, 2005: Court of Appeals (CA) issues 20-day freeze order
September 20, 2005: CA extends freeze order “until after all appropriate proceedings”
January 4, 2006: CA denies motion to lift extended freeze order
January 12, 2007: CA denies motion for reconsideration
March 6, 2013: Supreme Court decision

Lt. Gen. Ligot’s declared net worth rose from ₱105,000 (1982) to ₱3,848,003 (2003).
Ombudsman investigation uncovered at least ₱54 million in undeclared assets (bank accounts, real property, vehicles, investments) held by the Ligot family and Yambao.
Assets were grossly disproportionate to official salary and without lawful explanation.
Ombudsman filed perjury and graft complaints; AMLC conducted financial probe and found probable cause for money‐laundering offenses.

AMLC’s June 27, 2005 ex parte application led CA to freeze the Ligots’ and Yambao’s assets for 20 days.
Republic secured a September 20, 2005 CA resolution extending the freeze indefinitely.
Ligots moved to lift the extension (denied January 4, 2006) and filed reconsideration (denied January 12, 2007).
Instead of a Rule 45 petition for certiorari, Ligots filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Supreme Court.

Whether certiorari was the proper remedy to challenge the CA’s extension of the freeze order.
Whether the CA’s indefinite extension violated the six-month maximum extension under the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases and the petitioners’ due process rights.

Procedural Aspect

The proper remedy to challenge a CA decision on freeze orders is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, not Rule 65.
Despite procedural misstep, the Court relaxed procedural rules to address the due process conflict.

Substantive Aspect

Probable cause for the original freeze order was properly established: (a) AMLC’s ex parte application, (b) Ombudsman’s findings of unexplained wealth materially related to graft and perjury complaints.
The Anti-Money Laundering Act authorizes a 20-day freeze, extended by the CA “for a period not exceeding six months” under Section 53(b) of the Rule in Civil Forfeiture Cases.
An indefinite extension—six years in this case—violated petitioners’ due proc

...