Case Summary (G.R. No. 152154)
Propriety of Summary Judgment
• Summary judgment granted when “no genuine issue as to any material fact” (Rule 35, Sec. 1)
• Republic’s motion supported by sworn exhibits, depositions, admissions, and documentary proof of Swiss deposits and public salaries
• Respondents’ opposition consisted of general denials, “lack of knowledge,” “no recall,” or bare assertion “funds were lawfully acquired,” without supporting affidavits or specifics—constituted sham defenses
• Sandiganbayan correctly granted summary judgment: respondents failed to tender admissible evidence raising genuine factual issues; Supreme Court affirms that summary judgment may be moved at any stage “after the answer has been served” and is not waived by agreeing to trial
Prima Facie Case for Forfeiture Under RA 1379
Elements under Sections 2 and 3, RA 1379:
- Respondents were public officers (President and First Lady)
- Acquired substantial property/money during incumbency (Swiss deposits under foundation names)
- Assets manifestly out of proportion to salaries and lawful income
• Known lawful income: aggregate government salaries 1966–1986 equivalent to USD 304,372.43 (judicially admitted; respondents failed to prove additional lawful income)
• Swiss deposits: admitted approximately USD 356 million (later USD 658 million with interest)
• Prima facie presumption of ill-gotten wealth established by disproportion
Judicial Admissions and Evidentiary Foundation
• Pleadings and miscellaneous documents bore respondents’ signatures; all material allegations and key documents not specifically denied as required by Rule 8, Secs. 10–11, deemed admitted
• Respondents’ Answer: denials “pregnant with admission” of existence and amount of funds; Imelda R. Marcos admitted transactions were lawful, thus conceding ownership
• Compromise Agreements (Dec. 28, 1993): though later voided, contained admissions that USD 356 million “belongs in principle” to the Republic and respondents claimed a share—binding admissions under Rule 129, Sec. 4
• Additional admissions: testimony of Ferdinand Jr. recognizing negotiation over Swiss funds; Manifestation of Imelda R. Marcos (May 26, 1998) acknowledging 90% ownership; Undertaking to pay human rights plaintiffs from funds in PNB escrow
Non-joinder of Swiss Foundations
• Foreign foundations served merely as “dummies” or conduits; not indispensable parties—no separate cause of action against them as juridical entities, per Republic v. Sandiganbayan (1995)
• Even if deemed indispensable, non-joinder is curable, not jurisdictional; Sandiganbayan had power to afford full relief
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152154)
Parties and Nature of the Case
- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
- Respondents: Hon. Sandiganbayan (Special First Division); Ferdinand E. Marcos (represented by his estate/heirs—Imelda R. Marcos, Maria Imelda [Imee] Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., and Irene Marcos-Araneta); and Imelda Romualdez Marcos in her individual capacity.
- Relief Sought: Certiorari under Rule 65 to set aside the Sandiganbayan’s January 31, 2002 resolution and reinstate its September 19, 2000 decision forfeiting in favor of the Republic approximately US$658 million held in escrow at the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
Background of the Case
- On December 17, 1991, PCGG filed a civil forfeiture petition (Civil Case No. 0141, Sandiganbayan) under Republic Act No. 1379, in relation to Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A.
- Subject Funds: Initially US$356 million (later with interest exceeding US$658 million) deposited in PNB escrow, traced to five groups of Swiss‐based foundations:
• Azio-Verso-Vibur
• Xandy-Wintrop-Charis-Scolari-Valamo-Spinus-Avertina
• Trinidad-Rayby-Palmy
• Rosalys-Aguamina
• Maler - Additional Subject: US$25 million and US$5 million in U.S. Treasury notes, frozen by PCGG at the Central Bank of the Philippines.
Procedural History
- October 18, 1993: Respondents filed their Answer.
- December 28, 1993: Marcos children and PCGG executed a General Agreement and Supplemental Agreements for global settlement.
- October 18, 1996: First motion for summary judgment by Republic denied due to pending compromise approval.
- Pre-trial Conferences: October 28, 1999 and January 21, 2000.
- March 10, 2000: Republic filed second motion for summary judgment.
- September 19, 2000: Sandiganbayan granted summary judgment, forfeiting US$627,608,544.95 plus increments.
- September–October 2000: Respondents filed motions for reconsideration; PCGG opposed.
- January 31, 2002: Sandiganbayan reversed its summary judgment decision, ordered further proceedings.
- July 15, 2003: Supreme Court resolved the Rule 65 certiorari petition.
Issues
- Whether respondents raised genuine issues of material fact to defeat summary judgment.
- Whether Republic proved its forfeiture case under Sections 2 and 3 of RA 1379 (prima facie presumption of unlawfully ac