Case Summary (G.R. No. 152375)
Petitioner and Respondents
• Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (PCGG)
• Respondents: Sandiganbayan (4th Division) and defendants in Civil Case No. 0009 – heirs of Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos (heirs substituted), Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, heirs of Potenciano Ilusorio.
Key Dates
• July 22, 1987: Filing of Civil Case No. 0009 before Sandiganbayan.
• April 12, 1993: Sandiganbayan orders consolidation of incidental cases, including Civil Case No. 0130, with Civil Case No. 0009.
• Oct. 23–24, 1996: Deposition of Maurice V. Bane taken in London.
• Jan. 21, 1998: PCGG’s first motion to adopt Bane and other depositions as evidence is denied.
• Aug. 21, 2000 & Apr. 3, 2001: Motions to reopen case and take judicial notice of Bane deposition are denied.
• Nov. 16, 2001: PCGG’s third motion to admit Bane deposition filed.
• Feb. 7, 2002: Sandiganbayan denies third motion, citing finality of 1998 order.
• Dec. 13, 2011: Supreme Court decision on certiorari – majority denies petition; dissent urges reversal.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution; Rule 65 (certiorari), Rule 23 (depositions), Rule 30, Sec. 5(f) (reopening case), Rule 130, Sec. 47 (former testimony/hearsay exception) of the Rules of Court; Rule 129 on judicial notice; jurisprudential principles on consolidation and grave abuse of discretion.
Procedural Background
PCGG filed Civil Case No. 0009 for reconveyance, accounting, and damages, alleging illegal acquisition of ETPI’s Class A stock by private respondents for Marcos‐beneficiaries. Numerous incidental cases followed, including Civil Case No. 0130—a certiorari petition by Victor Africa seeking to nullify PCGG orders concerning special ETPI stockholders meetings.
Civil Case No. 0130 and Consolidation
In April 1993 the Sandiganbayan consolidated Civil Case No. 0130 and other incidental cases with Civil Case No. 0009. The resolution treated each as a mere incident but merged their hearing and trial into one docket. This procedural device aimed to avoid delay, reduce costs, and prevent contradictory findings on common factual and legal questions.
Taking of Bane Deposition (1996)
Pursuant to Rule 23, PCGG served all Civil Case No. 0009 defendants with notice that it would take the deposition of ETPI’s former director /treasurer‐in‐trust, Maurice V. Bane, at the Philippine Embassy in London on Oct. 23–24, 1996. The notice expressly stated that the deposition would be used in evidence in both Civil Case No. 0130 and the main Civil Case No. 0009. Only Victor Africa attended and cross‐examined.
First Motion to Adopt Depositions (1998)
After pretrial, PCGG sought to adopt depositions—including Bane’s—as its evidence in Civil Case No. 0009, relying on discovery‐and‐deposition provisions. On Apr. 1, 1998, the Sandiganbayan denied adoption of Bane’s deposition, ruling that the deponent was “not available for cross‐examination in this Court.” That interlocutory order was not appealed or reconsidered.
Formal Offer of Evidence and Second Motion (1999–2000)
PCGG made its formal offer of evidence in Dec. 1999 but omitted Bane’s deposition. In Feb. 2000 it moved to reopen its case and introduce the deposition or, alternatively, to take judicial notice of its contents. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion (Aug. 21, 2000), holding that the deposition’s admission required the ordinary formal offer of exhibits and was not a subject of judicial notice. Reconsideration was denied on Apr. 3, 2001.
Third Motion and Sandiganbayan’s 2002 Resolution
In Nov. 2001 PCGG filed a third motion to admit Bane’s deposition. On Feb. 7, 2002, the Sandiganbayan denied it, characterizing it as a forbidden motion for reconsideration of the 1998 interlocutory order, now final by PCGG’s failure to challenge it within the reglementary period. PCGG then filed the present certiorari petition.
Issues on Certiorari
- Whether the petition was timely under Rule 65.
- Whether the 1998 resolution was interlocutory and thus revisable.
- Whether Sandiganbayan gravely abused discretion by refusing (a) to admit Bane’s deposition, (b) to reopen the case under Rule 30, Sec. 5(f), and (c) to take judicial notice.
- Whether Bane’s deposition is admissible under Rule 23, Sec. 4(c), and/or Rule 130, Sec. 47.
Court’s Ruling on Preliminary Matters
The Court agrees the 1998 resolution was interlocutory and not final, and that certiorari was premature immediately after 1998. PCGG’s dormant response to that resolution did not convert it into a final order. PCGG’s third motion was not a prohibited motion for reconsideration, as such rules apply only to final judgments or orders.
Discretion to Reopen Case (Rule 30, Sec. 5(f))
After PCGG rested its case, it sought to reopen for the depositions. Under Rule 30, Sec. 5(f), a court may, for good reasons in the furtherance of justice, permit a party to adduce evidence on the original case. The Court finds the Sandiganbayan gravely abused discretion in denying reopening, given Bane’s advanced age, foreign residence, and the deposition’s significance—without prejudice to respondents, who had not yet presented their evidence.
Admissibility of the Bane Deposition
Despite the abuse, the Court examines admissibility. Rule 23, Sec. 4(c) permits use of a deposition when a witness resides abroad or is otherwise unable to attend. Rule 130, Sec. 47 allows former testimony or deposition to be admitted when (a) the witness is deceased/unable to testify, (b) testimony occurred in a prior proceeding involving the same parties and subject matter, and (c) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross‐examine. The Court holds:
– The Sandiganbayan’s consolidation order merged Civil Case Nos. 0130 and 0009 into a single action.
– All Civil Case No. 0009 defendants received notice of Bane’s deposition, thereby waiving the right to object or cross‐examine at trial.
– Section 47, Rule 130 is inapplicable because the deposition was taken after conso
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 152375)
Facts and Subject Matter
- On July 22, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines (through the Presidential Commission on Good Government, PCGG) filed Civil Case No. 0009 in the Sandiganbayan.
- The complaint sought reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against respondents for alleged illegal acquisition of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) Class A shares.
- Victor Africa (son of late Jose L. Africa) separately filed Civil Case No. 0130, seeking to nullify PCGG orders directing him to account for sequestered ETPI shares.
- By Resolution of April 12, 1993, the Sandiganbayan consolidated Civil Case Nos. 0009 and 0130 (among others), treating the latter as an incident to the main case.
Deposition of Maurice V. Bane
- In September 1996, petitioner served all Civil Case 0009 defendants with a Second Amended Notice to Take Oral Deposition of Maurice V. Bane in London.
- Bane, former ETPI director and treasurer-in-trust, was deposed October 23–24, 1996 under Section 4, Rule 23 (old Rules of Court), with notice that his testimony would be used in both the incident case and the main case.
- Only Victor Africa appeared at the deposition; other defendants failed to cross-examine.
Petitioner’s Motions to Admit Bane Deposition
- First Motion (Jan 1998): Sought to adopt testimonies from incident cases (including Bane’s) into Civil Case 0009.
• Denied by Sandiganbayan (April 1, 1998) as Bane was “not available for cross-examination.” - Second Motion/Urgent Request (Feb 2000): Asked reopening of main case to introduce Bane deposition or for judicial notice of its findings.
• Denied (Aug 21, 2000) as redundant and not proper under Rule 129 (judicial notice). - Reconsideration Denied (Apr 3, 2001): Sandiganbayan reaffirmed that the deposition was inadmissible and that its 1998 ruling became final.
- Third Motion (Nov 2001): Renewed request to admit Bane deposition as supplemental evidence.
• Denied (Feb 7, 2002) on the ground that the 1998 r