Title
San Miguel Corporation vs. Sandiganbayan
Case
G.R. No. 104637-38
Decision Date
Sep 14, 2000
Coco-levy funds used to purchase SMC shares deemed public; Compromise Agreement invalidated, Sandiganbayan upheld jurisdiction, interventions allowed.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 104637-38)

Factual Background

On March 26, 1986, the CIIF sold 33,133,266 shares of San Miguel Corporation to Andres Soriano III. Upon partial payment of the purchase price, the shares were sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) under the guise of recovering allegedly ill-gotten wealth. Subsequent legal disputes ensued, culminating in a significant reconsideration of the sale terms and their implications for public funds, as the coco-levy funds involved were deemed public assets.

Legal Developments and Compromise Agreement

Following the initial disputes, in March 1990, a Compromise Agreement was reached between the SMC Group and UCPB Group, wherein the sale of the shares corresponding to the first installment was recognized as valid, while the agreements for the second, third, and fourth installments were rescinded. The agreement stipulated that disputes could later be contested in the Sandiganbayan, with explicit acknowledgment of the shares' public character as they were subject to sequestration.

Opposition to Compromise Agreement

The Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, opposed the Compromise Agreement, asserting that the coco-levy funds were public funds and thus beyond private disposition. The Solicitor General's contention underscored the need for transparency and the protection of public interests against potential disadvantageous settlements involving government-derived assets.

Intervention Motions

In the proceeding, COCOFED and Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. sought to intervene, claiming beneficial interests over the shares. COCOFED asserted that they represented the rightful interests of coconut farmers regarding the coco-levy funds, and their legal standing as stakeholders warranted intervention in the dispute.

Sandiganbayan's Jurisdiction and Decisions

The Sandiganbayan, while approaching the complexity of ownership and the public nature of the assets involved, upheld its jurisdiction over the matter. It addressed the nuances of the Compromise Agreement, emphasizing that any approval must consider the public assets' implications and the legitimacy of the transactions under scrutiny.

Findings of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ultimately found no grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan in its decisions for the delivery of shares and payment of dividends, emphasizing the unanimous acknowledgment of the shares' sequestered status. The Court noted that the sequestered shares' value was under litigation, and any compromise involving public funds necessitated careful oversight by the Sandiganbayan.

Rationale for Denial of Petitions

The petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed on the grounds that the Sandiganbayan acted within its jurisdiction to protec

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.