G.R. No. 191425 - Nollora, Jr. vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191425)

Factual Background

The Anti‑Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued ex parte freeze orders on various bank accounts after determining that probable cause existed that those deposits were related to unlawful activity under RA 9160. Under the original Section 10 of RA 9160, the AMLC’s freeze order was effective immediately for a period not exceeding fifteen days, and that fifteen‑day period could be extended “upon order of the court.” The AMLC, acting in representation of the Republic of the Philippines, understood the phrase “upon order of the court” to permit the Court of Appeals to extend its freeze orders and therefore filed petitions in the Court of Appeals for extensions before the fifteen‑day period lapsed.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals dismissed the AMLC’s petitions for extension, ruling uniformly that RA 9160 did not vest the Court of Appeals with authority to extend a freeze order issued by the AMLC. The dismissals were rendered in CA-G.R. SP No. 69210 (decision dated May 20, 2002), CA-G.R. SP No. 69371 (decision dated August 9, 2002), CA-G.R. SP No. 72863 (decision dated September 30, 2002), and CA-G.R. SP No. 72971 (decision dated October 15, 2002). The differing constructions—AMLC’s view that the Court of Appeals could extend, and the Court of Appeals’ contrary view—gave rise to the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

Legislative Amendment and Transitory Provision

On March 3, 2003, Congress enacted RA 9194, amending Section 10 of RA 9160 to read, in pertinent part, that the Court of Appeals, upon ex parte application by the AMLC and after determination of probable cause, “may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately” and that “the freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court.” Section 12 of RA 9194 provided a transitory rule that existing freeze orders issued by the AMLC “shall remain in force for a period of thirty (30) days after the effectivity of this Act, unless extended by the Court of Appeals.” The amendment also prompted this Court to promulgate Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Privatization, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense Under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended, with Sections 43 to 53 of Title VIII governing petitions for freeze order in the Court of Appeals.

OSG Motion and Supreme Court Temporary Restraining Order

The Office of the Solicitor General filed a “Very Urgent Motion to Remand Cases to the Honorable Court of Appeals (with Prayer for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)” on April 3, 2003. The OSG asked the Supreme Court to remand the consolidated petitions to the Court of Appeals pursuant to RA 9194 and prayed for a temporary restraining order on the ground that, absent interim relief, the freeze orders would be automatically lifted on April 22, 2003 and the funds would be removed from the reach of law enforcement authorities. The OSG also represented that twenty‑nine additional cases raising the same issue were pending in the Court of Appeals and requested that such cases be covered by the requested TRO.

Supreme Court Temporary Restraining Order and Subsequent Developments

On April 21, 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order in these consolidated cases and in all other similar cases pending before all courts in the Philippines. The TRO directed the respondents, the concerned banks, and all persons acting on their behalf to give full force and effect to existing freeze orders until further orders of this Court. The OSG later informed the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals, on April 22, 2003, granted the petition for extension in CA-G.R. SP No. 69371, extending the freeze orders for a period of ninety days from April 22, 2003, and asked that G.R. No. 154694 be dismissed as moot while requesting remand of the remaining consolidated petitions to the Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court, through the Resolution authored by Corona, J., concluded that the amendment effected by RA 9194 removed any doubt concerning the jurisdiction to extend freeze orders. The Court held that, as amended, RA 9160 vests the sole authority to issue a freeze order and to extend its effectivity in the Court of Appeals, and that the Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to extend existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC with respect to accounts and deposits related to money‑laundering activities. Consequently, G.R. No. 154694 was dismissed as moot, while G.R. Nos. 154522, 155554, and 155711 were remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action. The April 21, 2003 temporary restraining order was maintained pending resolution by the Court of Appeals. The Resolution ordered no costs. Justices Sandoval‑Gutierrez, Azcuna, and Garcia concurred; Chief Justice Puno was on leave.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning rested on the text and effect of RA 9194. By expressly authorizing the Court of Appeals to issue freeze orders and to extend their duration, and by providing a transitory rule pe

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 191425)

Parties and Posture

Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) was the Petitioner in consolidated Rule 45 petitions seeking remand and extension of freeze orders.
Cabrini Green & Ross, Inc., Michael J. Findlay and Jane Gelberg were Respondents in G.R. No. 154522 and related consolidated matters.
The petitions arose from AMLC freeze orders issued under Section 10 of RA 9160 against various bank accounts allegedly related to unlawful activity.
The cases were consolidated under Rule 45, Rules of Court to resolve the common question of which court may extend the effectivity of a freeze order.

Key Factual Allegations

The AMLC issued freeze orders after finding prima facie that certain bank accounts were related to unlawful activities.
Under the original text of Section 10 of RA 9160, an AMLC freeze order was effective for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days unless extended "upon order of the court."
The AMLC filed petitions in the Court of Appeals seeking extension of its freeze orders before the fifteen-day period lapsed.
The Court of Appeals dismissed those petitions on the ground that it lacked statutory authority to extend AMLC freeze orders under the original RA 9160.

Statutory Framework

Section 10 of RA 9160 originally authorized the AMLC to issue freeze orders effective immediately for a period not exceeding fifteen (15) days and provided that the fifteen (15)-day period "may be extended upon order of the court."
The original Section 10 of RA 9160 restricted the power to issue a TRO or writ of injunction against an AMLC freeze order to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
RA 9194, enacted March 3, 2003 and effective March 23, 2003, amended Section 10 of RA 9160 to vest the Court of Appeals with authority to issue a freeze order upon ex parte application by the AMLC and to extend the freeze order.
Section 12 of RA 9194 provided a transitory provision that existing AMLC freeze orders shall remain in force for thirty (30) days after the Act's effectivity unless extended by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court promulgated the Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Privatization, and Freezing of Monetary Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money Laundering Offense Under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended, and Sections 43 to 53 of Title VIII govern petitions for freeze orders in the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

The Court of Appeals rendered decisions dismissing the AMLC petitions in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 69210, 69371, 72863, and 72971 dated May 20, 2002; August 9, 2002; September 30, 2002; and October 15, 2002 respectively.
During the pendency of the Supre