Title
Supreme Court
Meat Packing Corporation of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 103068
Decision Date
Jun 22, 2001
MPCP contested Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction, consignation validity, and lease-purchase rescission; SC upheld rulings, dismissing MPCP's petition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 121039-45)

Factual Background

• On November 3, 1975, MPCP leased its Pasig City meat‐packing complex to PIMECO under a 28-year lease‐purchase agreement at annual rentals then totaling ₱38.5 million.
• Supplementary agreement of same date increased total consideration to ₱93.7 million, payable starting January 1, 1981, at ₱3.346 million per year, in view of additional rehabilitation costs.
• The contract provided for automatic rescission upon PIMECO’s failure to pay three cumulative annual installments, with forfeiture of all paid sums as rentals.

Sequestration and Rescission Attempts

• On March 17, 1986, PCGG sequestered PIMECO’s assets—including the lease agreement and plant—pending recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth of Peter Sabido and other “crony” defendants.
• On November 17, 1986, MPCP notified PIMECO of rescission based on nonpayment of over ₱2 million in 1986 rentals. PCGG refused GSIS’s request to exclude the plant from sequestration.
• PCGG resolved on January 24, 1989 to turn over the complex to GSIS/MPCP, subject to conditions including Sandiganbayan approval and execution of a memorandum of agreement.

Sandiganbayan Proceedings

• July 29, 1987: PCGG filed Civil Case No. 0024 for reconveyance, restitution, accounting and damages against Peter Sabido et al.
• May–June 1989: Peter Sabido moved to enjoin PCGG’s turnover to GSIS/MPCP, invoking Sandiganbayan’s approval requirement. The Sandiganbayan issued a temporary restraining order (June 2, 1989) and, upon bond posting, a writ of preliminary injunction (July 10, 1989) restraining the turnover and interference with PIMECO’s operations.
• November 29, 1989: The Sandiganbayan declared PCGG’s resolutions and memorandum of April 28, 1989 null and void for grave abuse of discretion, permanently enjoining their implementation.

Related Declaratory Petition

• August 30, 1990: PIMECO filed Civil Case No. 0108 seeking declaratory relief that paragraph 5 (rescission clause) no longer bound it, given partial rental payments and PCGG’s irregular payments after sequestration.
• PCGG tendered ₱5 million on January 30, 1991 for accrued rentals; MPCP refused, insisting on prior rescission.

Sandiganbayan Resolutions on Tender and Consignation

• July 2, 1991: The Sandiganbayan ordered MPCP to accept PCGG’s consignation of ₱5 million, declaring the tender valid and extinguishing that portion of the arrears.
• November 29, 1991: On reconsideration, the Sandiganbayan reaffirmed its July 2 order, holding PCGG had a continuing duty to preserve sequestered assets, and that MPCP’s refusal was unjustified.

Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over MPCP, a non-party in Civil Case No. 0024, to order acceptance of PCGG’s ₱5 million tender.
  2. Whether PCGG’s tender and consignation, despite MPCP’s claimed rescission, effectively prevented cancellation of the lease-purchase agreement.

Applicable Law (1987 Constitution and Other Rules)

• 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 1(1): Establishes Sandiganbayan’s original jurisdiction over civil cases involving recovery of ill-gotten wealth.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court: Writ of certiorari for grave abuse of discretion.
• Civil Code Articles 1256–1260: Rules on tender and consignation—tender as antecedent, consignation as judicial deposit extinguishing obligation when creditor unjustly refuses payment.
• Jurisprudential Standard: Grave abuse of discretion must be patent, gross and amount to a lack of jurisdiction.

Court’s Analysis

• Tender and Consignation Validity: PCGG’s prior tender of ₱5 million, followed by consignation, extinguished that portion of arrears and reduced unpaid rentals below three annual installments required for automatic rescission (₱10.038 million).
• Acceptance of Subsequent Payments: MPCP’s acceptance of various payments from 1986 to 1990 (totaling ₱15.9 million) negated any prior rescission.
• M



...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.