Title
Supreme Court
Republic vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 166859
Decision Date
Apr 12, 2011
Dispute over 20% SMC shares acquired using coconut levy funds; Supreme Court ruled shares public property, held in trust for farmers, Cojuangco liable for breach of fiduciary duty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-46158)

Key Individuals and Context
• Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. – former government official under President Marcos; President and Director of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB); Director of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA).
• Cojuangco Companies – 44 corporations through which Cojuangco acquired San Miguel Corporation (SMC) shares.
• Coconut farmers – beneficiaries of coco levy funds.
• PCGG – Presidential Commission on Good Government, petitioner in original cases.
• Sandiganbayan – anti-graft court that heard Civil Case No. 0033-F.

Petitioner and Respondents
• Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (through PCGG).
• Respondents: Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. and 44 “nominee” corporations.

Key Dates
• July 31, 1987: Republic filed original Civil Case No. 0033.
• Mid-1983: Cojuangco acquired ~20% of SMC shares (16,276,545 at acquisition).
• 1991–1999: Complaint subdivided; parties impleaded; writs of sequestration issued and later challenged.
• May 7, 2004: Sandiganbayan granted partial summary judgment for CIIF block of 33,133,266 shares.
• July 11, 2003: Republic moved for partial summary judgment on Cojuangco block shares.
• December 10, 2004: Sandiganbayan denied Republic’s motion, citing genuine factual issues.
• August 2006: Trial set; Republic declined to present witnesses, offered documentary evidence only.
• November 28, 2007: Sandiganbayan dismissed Republic’s case on Cojuangco block, ruling insufficient proof.

Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution – basis for government recovery of ill-gotten wealth.
• PCGG Rules (1986) Sec. 3 – sequestration orders require two-commissioner signature and prima facie basis.
• EO No. 1 (Feb 28, 1986) and EO No. 2 (Mar 12, 1986) – define “ill-gotten wealth” and authorize PCGG to recover it.
• RA 3019 (Anti-Graft Act) Sec. 3(i) – prohibits public officers from acquiring personal interests in matters they oversee.
• P.D. 755 (1975) – acquired UCPB with coco levy funds to serve coconut farmers; directed free distribution of UCPB shares to farmers.
• P.D. 961/1468 – created Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) from coco levy surpluses to invest in palm-oil corporations.
• Corporation Code Secs. 31, 34 – directors owe fiduciary duties; they must account for profits from corporate opportunities.

Proven Facts and Judicial Admissions
• Cojuangco admitted in his Answer: – He was a public officer under Marcos (PCA Director; UCPB President/Director). – In 1983, he acquired SMC shares worth US$49 million (~20% of capital stock). – He used proceeds of loans from UCPB and advances from CIIF Oil Mills to pay for those shares.
• Respondents’ joint Pre-Trial Brief specified planned evidence showing UCPB loans and CIIF advances funded the purchase. They did not contradict these admissions.
• Coconut levy funds, CIIF, UCPB, and assets acquired therefrom are prima facie public in character. Supreme Court rulings (COCOFED, Republic v. Sandiganbayan) so hold.

Errors in Sandiganbayan Proceedings

  1. Lifting nine writs of sequestration for technical defects was proper; but imposing onerous conditions on SMC’s corporate books (e.g., notice periods; escrow) exceeded Sandiganbayan’s authority.
  2. Denial of Republic’s partial summary judgment on Cojuangco block was correct then, given disputed facts.
  3. Dismissal of Republic’s case on November 28, 2007 overlooked respondents’ judicial admissions that UCPB loans and CIIF advances exclusively financed the stock purchase; respondents failed to present any contrary evidence at trial.
  4. Failure to hold Cojuangco to his fiduciary duties as UCPB officer/director: – The loan transactions aided his personal acquisition of SMC shares, depriving coconut farmers and UCPB/CIIF of corporate opportunities. – Violated Corporation Code Secs. 31, 34 (self-dealing) and anti-graft laws (RA 3019, RPC Art. 216).
  5. Inadequate consideration of mandatory constructive trust under Civil Code Art. 1455: stock purchase with public-fund proceeds by fiduciary triggered constructive trust in Go








...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.