ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
December-2009 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 7054 - Conrado N. Que v. Atty. Anastacio Revilla, Jr.

  • A.M. No. P-09-2600 - Emma B. Ramos v. Apollo R. Ragot

  • A.M. No. P-09-2636 Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2681-P - Atty. Eduardo Francisco v. Liza O. Galvez

  • A.M. No. P-09-2676 - Judge Juanita T. Guerrero v. Teresita V. Ong

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953 - Mayor Hadji Amer R. Sampiano, et al. v. Judge Cader P. Indar, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 12, Malabang, Lanao del Sur

  • A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055 - Heir of the late Rev. Fr. Jose O. Aspiras v. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial court, Branch 31, Agoo, La Union

  • A.M. No. RTJ-09-2170 Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3094-RTJ - Heirs of Simeon Piedad, namely, Eliseo Piedad, et al. v. Executive Judge Cesar O. Estrena and Judge Gaudiso D. Villarin

  • G.R. No. 146548 : December 18, 2009 - HEIRS OF DOMINGO HERNANDEZ, SR., namely: SERGIA V. HERNANDEZ (Surviving Spouse), DOMINGO V. HERNANDEZ, JR., and MARIA LEONORA WILMA HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, v. PLARIDEL MINGOA, SR., DOLORES CAMISURA, MELANIE MINGOA AND

  • G.R. No. 147951 - Arsenio F. Olegario, et al. v. Pedro C. Mari, represented by Lilia C. Mari-Camba

  • G.R. No. 155125 - YSS Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Organization v. YSS Laboratories, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 156208 - NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association, et al. v. The National Power Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 149548, G.R. No. 167505, G.R. No. 167540, G.R. No. 167543, G.R. No. 167845, G.R. No. 169163 and G.R. No. 179650 - ROXAS and COMPANY, INC. v. DAMBA-NFSW AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM/DAMAYAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWANG BUKID SA ASYENDA ROXAS-NATIO

  • G.R. No. 157038 - Government Serive Insurance System v. Jean E. Raoet

  • G.R. No. 157867 - Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. Hon. Salvador Abad Santos

  • G.R. No. 159788 - Sotero Roy Leonero, et al. v. Spouses Marcelino B. Barba, et al.

  • G.R. No. 159792 - Barangay Sangalang, represented by its Chairman Dante C. Marcellana v. Barangay Maguihan, represented by its Chairman Arnulfo Villarez

  • G.R. No. 160146 - Leslie Okol v. Slimmers World International, et al.

  • G.R. No. 160367 - Evelyn S. Cabungcal, et al. v. Sonia R. Lorenzo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 161424 - Republic of the Philippines v. Ignacio Leonor and Catalino Razon

  • G.R. No. 161929 - Lynn Paz T. Dela Cruz, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 163117 - Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. v. Maria Letecia Fernandez, et al.

  • G.R. No. 162243, G.R. NO. 164516 and G.R. NO. 171875 - Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 163553 - Yun Kwan Byung v. Philippine Amusement Gaming Corporation

  • G.R. No. 164195 - Apo Fruits Corporation and Hijo Plantation, Inc. v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, and Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 165109 - Manuel Mamba, et al. v. Edgar R. Lara, et al.

  • G.R. No. 165299 - Pacific Steam Laundry, Inc. v. Laguna Lake Development Authority

  • G.R. No. 165387 - Mayon Estate Corporation and Earthland Developer Corporation v. Lualhati Beltran

  • G.R. No. 166570 - Efren M. Herrera, et al. v. National Power Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 166941 - Spouses Dennis Barias and Divina Barias v. Heirs of Bartolome Boneo, namely, Juanita Leopoldo, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168668 - Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), et al. v. Pearl City Manufacturing Corporation, et al.

  • G.R. No. 168897 - Gina M. Tiangco and Salvacion Jenny Manego v. Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc. and Jimmy Gow

  • G.R. No. 168756 and G.R. NO. 171476 - Shrimp Specialist, Inc., v. Fuji-Triumph Agri-Industrial Corporation

  • G.R. No. 170447 - Bievenido Di o and Renato Comparativo v. Pablo Olivarez

  • G.R. No. 170476 - People of the Philippines v. Ricardo Grande

  • G.R. No. 170661 - Ramon B. Formantes v. Duncan Pharmaceutical, Philis., Inc.

  • G.R. No. 171023 - Arsenio S. Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company

  • G.R. No. 171669 - Heirs of Rodrigo Yacapin, namely, Sol Belnas, et al. v. Felimon Belida (Deceased), represented by Merlyn B. Palos, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171916 - Constantino A. Pascual v. Lourdes S. Pascual

  • G.R. No. 172092 - People of the Philippines v. Joey Tion y Cabadu

  • G.R. No. 172372 - The People of the Philippines v. Romar Teodoro y Vallejo

  • G.R. No. 172822 - MOF COMPANY, INC., v. SHIN YANG BROKERAGE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 173158 - Alejandro B. Ty and International Realty Corporation v. Queen's Row Subdivision, Inc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 173319 - Federico Miguel Olbes v. Hon. Danilo A. Buemio, etc. et al.

  • G.R. No. 173329 - Susan G. Po and Lilia G. Mutia v. Omerio Dampal

  • G.R. No. 173441 - Heirs of Sofia Quirong, etc. v. Development Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 173533 - Vicente N. Luna, Jr. v. Nario Cabales, Oscar Pabalan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 174480 - People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Albalate, Jr.

  • G.R. No. 175115 - Lily O. Orbase v. Office of the Ombudsman and Adoracion Mendoza-Bolos

  • G.R. No. 175393 and G.R. NO. 177731 - Government Service Insurance System v. RTC of Pasig, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175466 - Bank of the Philippine Islands as successor-in-interest of Far East Bank and Trust Company v. SMP, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 175803 - Governor Ornaldo A. Fua, Jr., et al. v. The Commission on Audit, et al.

  • G.R. No. 175994 - Jesus Campos and Rosemarie Campos-Bautista v. Nenita Buevinida Pastrana, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176291 - Jorge B. Navarra v. Office of the Ombudsman, Samuel Namnama, et al.

  • G.R. No. 176951, G.R. No. 177499 and G.R. No. 178056 - League of cities of the Philippines, et al. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 177384 - Josephine Wee v. Republic of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 177404 and G.R. NO. 178097 - Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kumassie Plantation Company Incorporated

  • G.R. No. 177486 - Purisimo S. Buyco v. Nelson Baraquia

  • G.R. No. 177664 - CRC Agricultural Trading and Rolando B. Catindig v. National Labor Relations Commission and Roberto Obias

  • G.R. No. 177777 - People of the Philippines v. Fernando Gutierrez y Gatso

  • G.R. No. 178000 and 178003 - Liberato M. Carabeo v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 178606 - The Episcopal Diocese of the Northern Philippines v. The District Engineer, MPED-DPWH

  • G.R. No. 179328 - Rizalina P. Positos v. Jacob M. Chua

  • G.R. No. 179356 - Kepco Philippines Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

  • G.R. No. 179505 - First Philippine Holding Corporation v. Trans Middle East (Phils.) Equities Inc.

  • G.R. No. 179554 - Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Trackworks Rail Transit Advertising, Vending and Promotions, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 178158 and G.R. NO. 180428 - Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock Securities Limited and Philippine National Construction corporation

  • G.R. No. 179830 - Lintang Bedol v. Commssion on Elections

  • G.R. No. 179946 - The People of the Philippines v. Quirino Cabral y Valencia

  • G.R. No. 179952 - Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, etc. v. BA Finance Corporation and Malayan Insurance Co, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 180218 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 180439 - Resort Hotels Corporation, Rodolfo M. Cuenca Insvestment Corporation v. Development Bank of the Philippines and SM Investment Corp.

  • G.R. No. 181174 - Ma. Cristina Torres Braza, et al. v. The City Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza, represented by Leon Titular, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181455 and G.R. No. 182008 - Santiago Cua, Jr., et al. v. Miguel Ocampo Tan, et al.

  • G.R. No. 181556 - In Re: Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of Intercity Savinds and Loan Bank, Inc., Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc.

  • G.R. No. 181571 - Juno Batistis v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 182013 - Quasha Ancheta Pe a & Nolasco Law Office and Legeng International Reports, Limited v. The Special Sixth Division of the Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182161 - Rev. Father Robert P. Reyes v. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182216 - Plantation Bay Resort & Spa and Efren Belarmino v. Romel S. Dubrico, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182310 - People of the Philippines v. Jan Michael Tan and Archie Tan

  • G.R. No. 182336 - Elvira O. Ong v. Jose Casim Genio

  • G.R. No. 182430 - Leopoldo Abante v. KJGS Fleet Management Manila and/or Gur Domingo A. Macapayag, Kristian Gerhard Jebsens Skipsrenderi A/S

  • G.R. No. 182623 - Dionisio M. Musnit v. Sea Star Shipping Corporation and Sea Star Shipping Corporation, Ltd.

  • G.R. No. 182498 - Gen. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., chief, Philippine National Police (PNP), et al. v. Mary Jean B. Tagitis

  • G.R. No. 182626 - Hilario S. Ramirez v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.

  • G.R. No. 182645 - In the matter of the Heirship (Intestate Estates) of the late Hermogenes Rodriguez, et al., Rene B. Pascual v. Jaime M. Robles

  • G.R. No. 182735 - Sps. Rogelio Marcelo & Milagros v. Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB)

  • G.R. No. 183233 - Virgilio G. Anabe v. Asian Construction (ASIAKONSTRUKT), et al.

  • G.R. No. 183297 - National Power Corporation v. Hon. Amer Ibrahim, etc., et al.

  • G.R. No. 183317 - Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc. v. The Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment, et al.

  • G.R. No. 18335 - Juanito Tabigue, et al. v. International Copra Export Corporation (INTERCO)

  • G.R. No. 183908 - Joelson O. Iloreta v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. and Norbulk Shipping U.K. Ltd.

  • G.R. No. 184836 - Simon B. Aldovino, Jr., Danilo B. Faller and Ferdinand N. Talabong v. Commission on Elections and Wilfredo F. Asilo

  • G.R. No. 184977 - Coca Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Ricky E. Dela Cruz, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185011 - People of the Philippines v. SP03 Sangki Ara y Mirasol, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185381 - People of the Philippines v. Danilo Cruz y Culala

  • G.R. No. 185477 - Herminio M. Gutierrez, et al. v. Flora Mendoza-Plaza, et al.

  • G.R. No. 185749 - Civil Service Commission v. Herminigildo L. Andal

  • G.R. No. 186234 - People of the Philippines v. Felix Palgan

  • G.R. No. 186242 - Government Service Insurance System v. City Treasurer and City Assessor of the City of Manila

  • G.R. No. 186460 - People of the Philippines v. Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa

  • G.R. No. 186965 - Temic Automotive Philippines, Inc. v. Temic Automotive Philippines, Inc., Employees Union

  • G.R. No. 187478 - Representative Danila Ramon S. Fernandez v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Jesus L. Vicente

  • G.R. No. 187494 - People of the Philippines v. Elmer Barberos

  • G.R. No. 187838 - Adriatico Consortium, Inc. Primary Realty Corp., and Benito Cu-Uy-Gam v. Land Bank of the Philippines

  • G.R. No. 188240 - Michael L. San Miguel v. Commission on Elections and Christopher V. Aguilar

  • G.R. No. 189868 - KABATAAN PARTY-LIST, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 189698 - ELEAZAR P. QUINTO and GERINO A. TOLENTINO, JR., v. COMELEC

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 178158 and G.R. NO. 180428 - Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock Securities Limited and Philippine National Construction corporation

      G.R. No. 178158 and G.R. NO. 180428 - Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock Securities Limited and Philippine National Construction corporation

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. NO. 178158 : December 4, 2009]

    STRATEGIC ALLIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Respondents.
    ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS BERHAD, Intervenor.

    [G.R. NO. 180428]

    LUIS SISON, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N

    CARPIO, J.:

    Prologue

    This case is an anatomy of a P6.185 billion1 pillage of the public coffers that ranks among one of the most brazen and hideous in the history of this country. This case answers the questions why our Government perennially runs out of funds to provide basic services to our people, why the great masses of the Filipino people wallow in poverty, and why a very select few amass unimaginable wealth at the expense of the Filipino people.

    On 1 May 2007, the 30-year old franchise of Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) under Presidential Decree No. 1113 (PD 1113), as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1894 (PD 1894), expired. During the 13th Congress, PNCC sought to extend its franchise. PNCC won approval from the House of Representatives, which passed House Bill No. 57492 renewing PNCC's franchise for another 25 years. However, PNCC failed to secure approval from the Senate, dooming the extension of PNCC's franchise. Led by Senator Franklin M. Drilon, the Senate opposed PNCC's plea for extension of its franchise.3 Senator Drilon's privilege speech4 explains why the Senate chose not to renew PNCC's franchise:

    I repeat, Mr. President. PNCC has agreed in a compromise agreement dated 17 August 2006 to transfer to Radstock Securities Limited P17,676,063,922, no small money, Mr. President, my dear colleagues, P17.6 billion.

    What does it consist of? It consists of the following: 19 pieces of real estate properties with an appraised value of P5,993,689,000. Do we know what is the bulk of this? An almost 13-hectare property right here in the Financial Center. As we leave the Senate, as we go out of this Hall, as we drive thru past the GSIS, we will see on the right a vacant lot, that is PNCC property. As we turn right on Diosdado Macapagal, we see on our right new buildings, these are all PNCC properties. That is 12.9 hectares of valuable asset right in this Financial Center that is worth P5,993,689.000.

    What else, Mr. President? The 20% of the outstanding capital stock of PNCC with a par value of P2,300,000,000 - - I repeat, 20% of the outstanding capital stock of PNCC worth P2,300 billion - - was assigned to Radstock.

    In addition, Mr. President and my dear colleagues, please hold on to your seats because part of the agreement is 50% of PNCC's 6% share in the gross toll revenue of the Manila North Tollways Corporation for 27 years, from 2008 to 2035, is being assigned to Radstock. How much is this worth? It is worth P9,382,374,922. I repeat, P9,382,374,922.

    x x x

    Mr. President, P17,676,000,000, however, was made to appear in the agreement to be only worth P6,196,156,488. How was this achieved? How was an aggregate amount of P17,676,000,000 made to appear to be only P6,196,156,488? First, the 19 pieces of real estate worth P5,993,689,000 were only assigned a value of P4,195,000,000 or only 70% of their appraised value.

    Second, the PNCC shares of stock with a par value of P2.3 billion were marked to market and therefore were valued only at P713 million.

    Third, the share of the toll revenue assigned was given a net present value of only P1,287,000,000 because of a 15% discounted rate that was applied.

    In other words, Mr. President, the toll collection of P9,382,374,922 for 27 years was given a net present value of only P1,287,000,000 so that it is made to appear that the compromise agreement is only worth P6,196,000,000.

    Mr. President, my dear colleagues, this agreement will substantially wipe out all the assets of PNCC. It will be left with nothing else except, probably, the collection for the next 25 years or so from the North Luzon Expressway. This agreement brought PNCC to the cleaners and literally cleaned the PNCC of all its assets. They brought PNCC to the cleaners and cleaned it to the tune of P17,676,000,000.

    x x x

    Mr. President, are we not entitled, as members of the Committee, to know who is Radstock Securities Limited?cralawred

    Radstock Securities Limited was allegedly incorporated under the laws of the British Virgin Islands. It has no known board of directors, except for its recently appointed attorney-in-fact, Mr. Carlos Dominguez.

    Mr. President, are the members of the Committee not entitled to know why 20 years after the account to Marubeni Corporation, which gave rise to the compromise agreement 20 years after the obligation was allegedly incurred, PNCC suddenly recognized this obligation in its books when in fact this obligation was not found in its books for 20 years?cralawred

    In other words, Mr. President, for 20 years, the financial statements of PNCC did not show any obligation to Marubeni, much less, to Radstock. Why suddenly on October 20, 2000, P10 billion in obligation was recognized? Why was it recognized?cralawred

    During the hearing on December 18, Mr. President, we asked this question to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) trustee, Atty. Raymundo Francisco, and he was asked: "What is the basis of your recommendation to recognize this?" He said: "I based my recommendation on a legal opinion of Feria and Feria." I asked him: "Who knew of this opinion?" He said: "Only me and the chairman of PNCC, Atty. Renato Valdecantos." I asked him: "Did you share this opinion with the members of the board who recognized the obligation of P10 billion?" He said: "No." "Can you produce this opinion now?" He said: "I have no copy."

    Mysteriously, Mr. President, an obligation of P10 billion based on a legal opinion which, even Mr. Arthur Aguilar, the chairman of PNCC, is not aware of, none of the members of the PNCC board on October 20, 2000 who recognized this obligation had seen this opinion. It is mysterious.

    Mr. President, are the members of our Committee not entitled to know why Radstock Securities Limited is given preference over all other creditors notwithstanding the fact that this is an unsecured obligation? There is no mortgage to secure this obligation.

    More importantly, Mr. President, equally recognized is the obligation of PNCC to the Philippine government to the tune of P36 billion. PNCC owes the Philippine government P36 billion recognized in its books, apart from P3 billion in taxes. Why in the face of all of these is Radstock given preference? Why is it that Radstock is given preference to claim P17.676 billion of the assets of PNCC and give it superior status over the claim of the Philippine government, of the Filipino people to the extent of P36 billion and taxes in the amount of P3 billion? Why, Mr. President? Why is Radstock given preference not only over the Philippine government claims of P39 billion but also over other creditors including a certain best merchant banker in Asia, which has already a final and executory judgment against PNCC for about P300 million? Why, Mr. President? Are we not entitled to know why the compromise agreement assigned P17.676 billion to Radstock? Why was it executed?5 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    Aside from Senator Drilon, Senator Sergio S. Osmeña III also saw irregularities in the transactions involving the Marubeni loans, thus:

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Ah okay. Good.

    Now, I'd like to point out to the Committee that - it seems that this was a politically driven deal like IMPSA. Because the acceptance of the 10 billion or 13 billion debt came in October 2000 and the Radstock assignment was January 10, 2001. Now, why would Marubeni sell for $2 million three months after there was a recognition that it was owed P10 billion. Can you explain that, Mr. Dominguez?cralawred

    MR. DOMINGUEZ. Your Honor, I am not aware of the decision making process of Marubeni. But my understanding was, the Japanese culture is not a litigious one and they didn't want to get into a, you know, a court situation here in the Philippines having a lot of other interest, et cetera.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Well, but that is beside the point, Mr. Dominguez. All I am asking is does it stand to reason that after you get an acceptance by a debtor that he owes you 10 billion, you sell your note for 100 million.

    Now, if that had happened a year before, maybe I would have understood why he sold for such a low amount. But right after, it seems that this was part of an orchestrated deal wherein with certain powerful interest would be able to say, "Yes, we will push through. We'll fix the courts. We'll fix the board. We'll fix the APT. And we will be able to do it, just give us 55 percent of whatever is recovered," am I correct?cralawred

    MR. DOMINGUEZ. As I said, Your Honor, I am not familiar with the decision making process of Marubeni. But my understanding was, as I said, they didn't want to get into a'

    SEN. OSMEÑA. All right.

    MR. DOMINGUEZ. ...litigious situation.6

    x x x

    SEN. OSMEÑA. All of these financial things can be arranged. They can hire a local bank, Filipino, to be trustee for the real estate. So ...

    SEN. DRILON. Well, then, that's a dummy relationship.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. In any case, to me the main point here is that a third party, Radstock, whoever owns it, bought Marubeni's right for $2 million or P100 million. Then, they are able to go through all these legal machinations and get awarded with the consent of PNCC of 6 billion. That's a 100 million to 6 billion. Now, Mr. Aguilar, you have been in the business for such a long time. I mean, this hedge funds whether it's Radstock or New Bridge or Texas Pacific Group or Carlyle or Avenue Capital, they look at their returns. So if Avenue Capital buys something for $2 million and you give him $4 million in one year, it's a 100 percent return. They ll walk away and dance to their stockholders. So here in this particular case, if you know that Radstock only bought it for $2 million, I would have gotten board approval and say, "Okay, let's settle this for $4 million." And Radstock would have jumped up and down. So what looks to me is that this was already a scheme. Marubeni wrote it off already. Marubeni wrote everything off. They just got a $2 million and they probably have no more residual rights or maybe there's a clause there, a secret clause, that says, "I want 20 percent of whatever you re able to eventually collect." So $2 million. But whatever it is, Marubeni practically wrote it off. Radstock's liability now or exposure is only $2 million plus all the lawyer fees, under-the-table, etcetera. All right. Okay. So it's pretty obvious to me that if anybody were using his brain, I would have gone up to Radstock and say, "Here's $4 million. Here's P200 million. Okay." They would have walked away. But evidently, the "ninongs" of Radstock - See, I don't care who owns Radstock. I want to know who is the ninong here who stands to make a lot of money by being able to get to courts, the government agencies, OGCC, or whoever else has been involved in this, to agree to 6 billion or whatever it was. That's a lot of money. And believe me, Radstock will probably get one or two billion and four billion will go into somebody else's pocket. Or Radstock will turn around, sell that claim for P4 billion and let the new guy just collect the payments over the years.

    x x x x7

    SEN. OSMEÑA. x x x I just wanted to know is CDCP Mining a 100 percent subsidiary of PNCC?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. Hindi ho. Ah, no.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. If they re not a 100 percent, why would they sign jointly and severally? I just want to plug the loopholes.

    MR. AGUILAR. I think it was - if I may just speculate. It was just common ownership at that time.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Al right. Now - Also, the ...

    MR. AGUILAR. Ah, 13 percent daw, Your Honor.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Huh?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. Thirteen percent ho.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. What's 13 percent?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. We owned ...

    x x x

    SEN. OSMEÑA. x x x CDCP Mining, how many percent of the equity of CDCP Mining was owned by PNCC, formerly CDCP?cralawred

    MS. PASETES. Thirteen percent.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Thirteen. And as a 13 percent owner, they agreed to sign jointly and severally?cralawred

    MS. PASETES. Yes.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. One-three? So poor PNCC and CDCP got taken to the cleaners here. They sign for a 100 percent and they only own 13 percent.

    x x x x8 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    I.
    The Case

    Before this Court are the consolidated petitions for review9 filed by Strategic Alliance Development Corporation (STRADEC) and Luis Sison (Sison), with a motion for intervention filed by Asiavest Merchant Bankers Berhad (Asiavest), challenging the validity of the Compromise Agreement between PNCC and Radstock. The Court of Appeals approved the Compromise Agreement in its Decision of 25 January 200710 in CA-G.R. CV No. 87971.

    II.
    The Antecedents

    PNCC was incorporated in 1966 for a term of fifty years under the Corporation Code with the name Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP).11 PD 1113, issued on 31 March 1977, granted CDCP a 30-year franchise to construct, operate and maintain toll facilities in the North and South Luzon Tollways. PD 1894, issued on 22 December 1983, amended PD 1113 to include in CDCP's franchise the Metro Manila Expressway, which would "serve as an additional artery in the transportation of trade and commerce in the Metro Manila area."

    Sometime between 1978 and 1981, Basay Mining Corporation (Basay Mining), an affiliate of CDCP, obtained loans from Marubeni Corporation of Japan (Marubeni) amounting to 5,460,000,000 yen and US$5 million. A CDCP official issued letters of guarantee for the loans, committing CDCP to pay solidarily for the full amount of the 5,460,000,000 yen loan and to the extent of P20 million for the US$5 million loan. However, there was no CDCP Board Resolution authorizing the issuance of the letters of guarantee. Later, Basay Mining changed its name to CDCP Mining Corporation (CDCP Mining). CDCP Mining secured the Marubeni loans when CDCP and CDCP Mining were still privately owned and managed.

    Subsequently in 1983, CDCP changed its corporate name to PNCC to reflect the extent of the Government's equity investment in the company, which arose when government financial institutions converted their loans to PNCC into equity following PNCC's inability to pay the loans.12 Various government financial institutions held a total of seventy-seven point forty-eight percent (77.48%) of PNCC's voting equity, most of which were later transferred to the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) under Administrative Orders No. 14 and 64, series of 1987 and 1988, respectively.13 Also, the Presidential Commission on Good Government holds some 13.82% of PNCC's voting equity under a writ of sequestration and through the voluntary surrender of certain PNCC shares. In fine, the Government owns 90.3% of the equity of PNCC and only 9.70% of PNCC's voting equity is under private ownership.14

    Meanwhile, the Marubeni loans to CDCP Mining remained unpaid. On 20 October 2000, during the short-lived Estrada Administration, the PNCC Board of Directors15 (PNCC Board) passed Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 admitting PNCC's liability to Marubeni for P10,743,103,388 as of 30 September 1999. PNCC Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 reads as follows:

    RESOLUTION NO. BD-092-2000

    RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes, acknowledges and confirms PNCC's obligations as of September 30, 1999 with the following entities, exclusive of the interests and other charges that may subsequently accrue and still become due therein, to wit:

    a). the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of P36,023,784,751.00; andcralawlibrary

    b). Marubeni Corporation in the amount of P10,743,103,388.00. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    This was the first PNCC Board Resolution admitting PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans. Previously, for two decades the PNCC Board consistently refused to admit any liability for the Marubeni loans.

    Less than two months later, or on 22 November 2000, the PNCC Board passed Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000 amending Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000. PNCC Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000 reads as follows:

    RESOLUTION NO. BD-099-2000

    RESOLVED, That the Board hereby amends its Resolution No. BD-092-2000 dated October 20, 2000 so as to read as follows:

    RESOLVED, That the Board recognizes, acknowledges and confirms its obligations as of September 30, 1999 with the following entities, exclusive of the interests and other charges that may subsequently accrue and still due thereon, subject to the final determination by the Commission on Audit (COA) of the amount of obligation involved, and subject further to the declaration of the legality of said obligations by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), to wit:

    a). the Government of the Republic of the Philippines in the amount of P36,023,784,751.00; andcralawlibrary

    b). Marubeni Corporation in the amount of P10,743,103,388.00. (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    In January 2001, barely three months after the PNCC Board first admitted liability for the Marubeni loans, Marubeni assigned its entire credit to Radstock for US$2 million or less than P100 million. In short, Radstock paid Marubeni less than 10% of the P10.743 billion admitted amount. Radstock immediately sent a notice and demand letter to PNCC.

    On 15 January 2001, Radstock filed an action for collection and damages against PNCC before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 213 (trial court). In its order of 23 January 2001, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary attachment against PNCC. The trial court ordered PNCC's bank accounts garnished and several of its real properties attached. On 14 February 2001, PNCC moved to set aside the 23 January 2001 Order and to discharge the writ of attachment. PNCC also filed a motion to dismiss the case. The trial court denied both motions. PNCC filed motions for reconsideration, which the trial court also denied. PNCC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66654, assailing the denial of the motion to dismiss. On 30 August 2002, the Court of Appeals denied PNCC's petition. PNCC filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals also denied in its 22 January 2003 Resolution. PNCC filed a Petition for Review before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 156887.

    Meanwhile, on 19 June 2001, at the start of the Arroyo Administration, the PNCC Board, under a new President and Chairman, revoked Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000.

    The trial court continued to hear the main case. On 10 December 2002, the trial court ruled in favor of Radstock, as follows:

    WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant is directed to pay the total amount of Thirteen Billion One Hundred Fifty One Million Nine Hundred Fifty Six thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight Pesos (P13,151,956,528.00) with interest from October 15, 2001 plus Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as attorney's fees.

    SO ORDERED.16

    PNCC appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 87971.

    On 19 March 2003, this Court issued a temporary restraining order in G.R. No. 156887 forbidding the trial court from implementing the writ of preliminary attachment and ordering the suspension of the proceedings before the trial court and the Court of Appeals. In its 3 October 2005 Decision, this Court ruled as follows:

    WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED and insofar as the Motion to Set Aside the Order and/or Discharge the Writ of Attachment is concerned, the Decision of the Court of Appeals on August 30, 2002 and its Resolution of January 22, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 66654 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The attachments over the properties by the writ of preliminary attachment are hereby ordered LIFTED effective upon the finality of this Decision. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED in all other respects. The Temporary Restraining Order is DISSOLVED immediately and the Court of Appeals is directed to PROCEED forthwith with the appeal filed by PNCC.

    No costs.

    SO ORDERED.17

    On 17 August 2006, PNCC and Radstock entered into the Compromise Agreement where they agreed to reduce PNCC's liability to Radstock, supposedly from P17,040,843,968, to P6,185,000,000. PNCC and Radstock submitted the Compromise Agreement to this Court for approval. In a Resolution dated 4 December 2006 in G.R. No. 156887, this Court referred the Compromise Agreement to the Commission on Audit (COA) for comment. The COA recommended approval of the Compromise Agreement. In a Resolution dated 22 November 2006, this Court noted the Compromise Agreement and referred it to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 87971. In its 25 January 2007 Decision, the Court of Appeals approved the Compromise Agreement.

    STRADEC moved for reconsideration of the 25 January 2007 Decision. STRADEC alleged that it has a claim against PNCC as a bidder of the National Government's shares, receivables, securities and interests in PNCC. The matter is subject of a complaint filed by STRADEC against PNCC and the Privatization and Management Office (PMO) for the issuance of a Notice of Award of Sale to Dong-A Consortium of which STRADEC is a partner. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 05-882, is pending before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 146 (RTC Branch 146).

    The Court of Appeals treated STRADEC's motion for reconsideration as a motion for intervention and denied it in its 31 May 2007 Resolution. STRADEC filed a Petition for Review before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 178158.

    Rodolfo Cuenca (Cuenca), a stockholder and former PNCC President and Board Chairman, filed an intervention before the Court of Appeals. Cuenca alleged that PNCC had no obligation to pay Radstock. The Court of Appeals also denied Cuenca's motion for intervention in its Resolution of 31 May 2007. Cuenca did not appeal the denial of his motion.

    On 2 July 2007, this Court issued an order directing PNCC and Radstock, their officers, agents, representatives, and other persons under their control, to maintain the status quo ante.

    Meanwhile, on 20 February 2007, Sison, also a stockholder and former PNCC President and Board Chairman, filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment Approving Compromise Agreement before the Court of Appeals. The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 97982.

    Asiavest, a judgment creditor of PNCC, filed an Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File the Attached Opposition and Motion-in-Intervention before the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97982.

    In a Resolution dated 12 June 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed Sison's petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to annul a final and executory judgment also rendered by the Court of Appeals. In the same resolution, the Court of Appeals also denied Asiavest's urgent motion.

    Asiavest filed its Urgent Motion for Leave to Intervene and to File the Attached Opposition and Motion-in-Intervention in G.R. No. 178158.18

    Sison filed a motion for reconsideration. In its 5 November 2007 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Sison's motion.

    On 26 November 2007, Sison filed a Petition for Review before this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 180428.

    In a Resolution dated 18 February 2008, this Court consolidated G.R. NOS. 178158 and 180428.

    On 13 January 2009, the Court held oral arguments on the following issues:

    1. Does the Compromise Agreement violate public policy?cralawred

    2. Does the subject matter involve an assumption by the government of a private entity's obligation in violation of the law and/or the Constitution? Is the PNCC Board Resolution of 20 October 2000 defective or illegal?cralawred

    3. Is the Compromise Agreement viable in the light of the non-renewal of PNCC's franchise by Congress and its inclusion of all or substantially all of PNCC's assets?cralawred

    4. Is the Decision of the Court of Appeals annullable even if final and executory on grounds of fraud and violation of public policy and the Constitution?

    III.
    Propriety of Actions

    The Court of Appeals denied STRADEC's motion for intervention on the ground that the motion was filed only after the Court of Appeals and the trial court had promulgated their respective decisions.

    Section 2, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

    SECTION 2. Time to intervene.' The motion to intervene may be filed at any time before rendition of judgment by the trial court. A copy of the pleading-in-intervention shall be attached to the motion and served on the original parties.

    The rule is not absolute. The rule on intervention, like all other rules of procedure, is intended to make the powers of the Court completely available for justice.19 It is aimed to facilitate a comprehensive adjudication of rival claims, overriding technicalities on the timeliness of the filing of the claims.20 This Court has ruled:

    [A]llowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. Rule 19 of the Rules of Court is a rule of procedure whose object is to make the powers of the court fully and completely available for justice. Its purpose is not to hinder or delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. Thus, interventions have been allowed even beyond the prescribed period in the Rule in the higher interest of justice. Interventions have been granted to afford indispensable parties, who have not been impleaded, the right to be heard even after a decision has been rendered by the trial court, when the Petition for Review of the judgment was already submitted for decision before the Supreme Court, and even where the assailed order has already become final and executory. In Lim v. Pacquing (310 Phil. 722 (1995)], the motion for intervention filed by the Republic of the Philippines was allowed by this Court to avoid grave injustice and injury and to settle once and for all the substantive issues raised by the parties.21

    In Collado v. Court of Appeals,22 this Court reiterated that exceptions to Section 2, Rule 12 could be made in the interest of substantial justice. Citing Mago v. Court of Appeals,23 the Court stated:

    It is quite clear and patent that the motions for intervention filed by the movants at this stage of the proceedings where trial had already been concluded x x x and on appeal x x x the same affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the instant petition for certiorari to review said judgments is already submitted for decision by the Supreme Court, are obviously and, manifestly late, beyond the period prescribed under x x x Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court.

    But Rule 12 of the Rules of Court, like all other Rules therein promulgated, is simply a rule of procedure, the whole purpose and object of which is to make the powers of the Court fully and completely available for justice. The purpose of procedure is not to thwart justice. Its proper aim is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. It was created not to hinder and delay but to facilitate and promote the administration of justice. It does not constitute the thing itself which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. It is designed as the means best adopted to obtain that thing. In other words, it is a means to an end.

    Concededly, STRADEC has no legal interest in the subject matter of the Compromise Agreement. Section 1, Rule 19 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states:

    SECTION 1. Who may intervene. - A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The Court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor's rights may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

    STRADEC's interest is dependent on the outcome of Civil Case No. 05-882. Unless STRADEC can show that RTC Branch 146 had already decided in its favor, its legal interest is simply contingent and expectant.

    However, Asiavest has a direct and material interest in the approval or disapproval of the Compromise Agreement. Asiavest is a judgment creditor of PNCC in G.R. No. 110263 and a court has already issued a writ of execution in its favor. Asiavest's interest is actual and material, direct and immediate characterized by either gain or loss from the judgment that this Court may render.24 Considering that the Compromise Agreement involves the disposition of all or substantially all of the assets of PNCC, Asiavest, as PNCC's judgment creditor, will be greatly prejudiced if the Compromise Agreement is eventually upheld.

    Sison has legal standing to challenge the Compromise Agreement. Although there was no allegation that Sison filed the case as a derivative suit in the name of PNCC, it could be fairly deduced that Sison was assailing the Compromise Agreement as a stockholder of PNCC. In such a situation, a stockholder of PNCC can sue on behalf of PNCC to annul the Compromise Agreement.

    A derivative action is a suit by a stockholder to enforce a corporate cause of action.25 Under the Corporation Code, where a corporation is an injured party, its power to sue is lodged with its board of directors or trustees.26 However, an individual stockholder may file a derivative suit on behalf of the corporation to protect or vindicate corporate rights whenever the officials of the corporation refuse to sue, or are the ones to be sued, or hold control of the corporation.27 In such actions, the corporation is the real party-in-interest while the suing stockholder, on behalf of the corporation, is only a nominal party.28

    In this case, the PNCC Board cannot conceivably be expected to attack the validity of the Compromise Agreement since the PNCC Board itself approved the Compromise Agreement. In fact, the PNCC Board steadfastly defends the Compromise Agreement for allegedly being advantageous to PNCC.

    Besides, the circumstances in this case are peculiar. Sison, as former PNCC President and Chairman of the PNCC Board, was responsible for the approval of the Board Resolution issued on 19 June 2001 revoking the previous Board Resolution admitting PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans.29 Such revocation, however, came after Radstock had filed an action for collection and damages against PNCC on 15 January 2001. Then, when the trial court rendered its decision on 10 December 2002 in favor of Radstock, Sison was no longer the PNCC President and Chairman, although he remains a stockholder of PNCC.

    When the case was on appeal before the Court of Appeals, there was no need for Sison to avail of any remedy, until PNCC and Radstock entered into the Compromise Agreement, which disposed of all or substantially all of PNCC's assets. Sison came to know of the Compromise Agreement only in December 2006. PNCC and Radstock submitted the Compromise Agreement to the Court of Appeals for approval on 10 January 2007. The Court of Appeals approved the Compromise Agreement on 25 January 2007. To require Sison at this stage to exhaust all the remedies within the corporation will render such remedies useless as the Compromise Agreement had already been approved by the Court of Appeals. PNCC's assets are in danger of being dissipated in favor of a private foreign corporation. Thus, Sison had no recourse but to avail of an extraordinary remedy to protect PNCC's assets.

    Besides, in the interest of substantial justice and for compelling reasons, such as the nature and importance of the issues raised in this case,30 this Court must take cognizance of Sison's action. This Court should exercise its prerogative to set aside technicalities in the Rules, because after all, the power of this Court to suspend its own rules whenever the interest of justice requires is well recognized.31 In Solicitor General v. The Metropolitan Manila Authority,32 this Court held:

    Unquestionably, the Court has the power to suspend procedural rules in the exercise of its inherent power, as expressly recognized in the Constitution, to promulgate rules concerning 'pleading, practice and procedure in all courts.' In proper cases, procedural rules may be relaxed or suspended in the interest of substantial justice, which otherwise may be miscarried because of a rigid and formalistic adherence to such rules. x x x

    We have made similar rulings in other cases, thus:

    Be it remembered that rules of procedure are but mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial justice, must always be avoided. x x x Time and again, this Court has suspended its own rules and excepted a particular case from their operation whenever the higher interests of justice so require.

    IV.
    The PNCC Board Acted in Bad Faith and with Gross Negligence

    in Directing the Affairs of PNCC

    In this jurisdiction, the members of the board of directors have a three-fold duty: duty of obedience, duty of diligence, and duty of loyalty.33 Accordingly, the members of the board of directors (1) shall direct the affairs of the corporation only in accordance with the purposes for which it was organized;34 (2) shall not willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or act in bad faith or with gross negligence in directing the affairs of the corporation;35 and (3) shall not acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees.36

    In the present case, the PNCC Board blatantly violated its duty of diligence as it miserably failed to act in good faith in handling the affairs of PNCC.

    First. For almost two decades, the PNCC Board had consistently refused to admit liability for the Marubeni loans because of the absence of a PNCC Board resolution authorizing the issuance of the letters of guarantee.

    There is no dispute that between 1978 and 1980, Marubeni Corporation extended two loans to Basay Mining (later renamed CDCP Mining): (1) US$5 million to finance the purchase of copper concentrates by Basay Mining; and (2) Y5.46 billion to finance the completion of the expansion project of Basay Mining including working capital.

    There is also no dispute that it was only on 20 October 2000 when the PNCC Board approved a resolution expressly admitting PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans. This was the first Board Resolution admitting liability for the Marubeni loans, for PNCC never admitted liability for these debts in the past. Even Radstock admitted that PNCC's 1994 Financial Statements did not reflect the Marubeni loans.37 Also, former PNCC Chairman Arthur Aguilar stated during the Senate hearings that "the Marubeni claim was never in the balance sheet x x x nor was it in a contingent account."38 Miriam M. Pasetes, SVP Finance of PNCC, and Atty. Herman R. Cimafranca of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, confirmed this fact, thus:

    SEN. DRILON. x x x And so, PNCC itself did not recognize this as an obligation but the board suddenly recognized it as an obligation. It was on that basis that the case was filed, is that correct? In fact, the case hinges on - they knew that this claim has prescribed but because of that board resolution which recognized the obligation they filed their complaint, is that correct?cralawred

    MR. CIMAFRANCA. Apparently, it's like that, Senator, because the filing of the case came after the acknowledgement.

    SEN. DRILON. Yes. In fact, the filing of the case came three months after the acknowledgement.

    MR. CIMAFRANCA. Yes. And that made it difficult to handle on our part.

    SEN. DRILON. That is correct. So, that it was an obligation which was not recognized in the financial statements of PNCC but revived - in the financial statements because it has prescribed but revived by the board effectively. That's the theory, at least, of the plaintiff. Is that correct? Who can answer that?

    Ms. Pasetes, yes.

    MS. PASETES. It is not an obligation of PNCC that is why it is not reflected in the financial statements.39 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    In short, after two decades of consistently refuting its liability for the Marubeni loans, the PNCC Board suddenly and inexplicably reversed itself by admitting in October 2000 liability for the Marubeni loans. Just three months after the PNCC Board recognized the Marubeni loans, Radstock acquired Marubeni's receivable and filed the present collection case.

    Second. The PNCC Board admitted liability for the Marubeni loans despite PNCC's total liabilities far exceeding its assets. There is no dispute that the Marubeni loans, once recognized, would wipe out the assets of PNCC, "virtually emptying the coffers of the PNCC."40 While PNCC insists that it remains financially viable, the figures in the COA Audit Reports tell otherwise.41 For 2006 and 2005, "the Corporation has incurred negative gross margin of P84.531 Million and P80.180 Million, respectively, and net losses that had accumulated in a deficit of P14.823 Billion as of 31 December 2006."42 The COA even opined that "unless [PNCC] Management addresses the issue on net losses in its financial rehabilitation plan, x x x the Corporation may not be able to continue its operations as a going concern."

    Notably, during the oral arguments before this Court, the Government Corporate Counsel admitted the PNCC's huge negative net worth, thus:

    JUSTICE CARPIO

    x x x what is the net worth now of PNCC? Negative what? Negative 6 Billion at least[?]

    ATTY. AGRA

    Yes, your Honor.43 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    Clearly, the PNCC Board's admission of liability for the Marubeni loans, given PNCC's huge negative net worth of at least P6 billion as admitted by PNCC's counsel, or P14.823 billion based on the 2006 COA Audit Report, would leave PNCC an empty shell, without any assets to pay its biggest creditor, the National Government with an admitted receivable of P36 billion from PNCC.

    Third. In a debilitating self-inflicted injury, the PNCC Board revived what appeared to have been a dead claim by abandoning one of PNCC's strong defenses, which is the prescription of the action to collect the Marubeni loans.

    Settled is the rule that actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by law.44 Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, an action upon a written contract, such as a loan contract, must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. The prescription of such an action is interrupted when the action is filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, or when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.45

    In this case, Basay Mining obtained the Marubeni loans sometime between 1978 and 1981. While Radstock claims that numerous demand letters were sent to PNCC, based on the records, the extrajudicial demands to pay the loans appear to have been made only in 1984 and 1986. Meanwhile, the written acknowledgment of the debt, in the form of Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000, was issued only on 20 October 2000.

    Thus, more than ten years would have already lapsed between Marubeni's extrajudicial demands in 1984 and 1986 and the acknowledgment by the PNCC Board of the Marubeni loans in 2000. However, the PNCC Board suddenly passed Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 expressly admitting liability for the Marubeni loans. In short, the PNCC Board admitted liability for the Marubeni loans despite the fact that the same might no longer be judicially collectible. Although the legal advantage was obviously on its side, the PNCC Board threw in the towel even before the fight could begin. During the Senate hearings, the matter of prescription was discussed, thus:

    SEN. DRILON. ... the prescription period is 10 years and there were no payments - the last demands were made, when? The last demands for payment?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. It was made January 2001 prior to the filing of the case.

    SEN. DRILON. Yes, all right. Before that, when was the last demand made? By the time they filed the complaint more than 10 years already lapsed.

    MS. OGAN. On record, Mr. Chairman, we have demands starting from - - a series of demands which started from May 23, 1984, letter from Marubeni to PNCC, demand payment. And we also have the letter of September 3, 1986, letter of Marubeni to then PNCC Chair Mr. Jaime. We have the June 24, 1986 letter from Marubeni to the PNCC Chairman. Also the March 4, 1988 letter...

    SEN. DRILON. The March 4, 1988 letter is not a demand letter.

    MS. OGAN. It is exactly addressed to the Asset Privatization Trust.

    SEN. DRILON. It is not a demand letter? Okay.

    MS. OGAN. And we have also...

    SEN. DRILON. Anyway...

    THE CHAIRMAN. Please answer when you are asked, Ms. Ogan. We want to put it on the record whether it is "yes" or "no".

    MS. OGAN. Yes, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. So, even assuming that all of those were demand letters, the 10 years prescription set in and it should have prescribed in 1998, whatever is the date, or before the case was filed in 2001.

    MR. CIMAFRANCA. The 10-year period for - if the contract is written, it's 10 years and it should have prescribed in 10 years and we did raise that in our answer, in our motion to dismiss.

    SEN. DRILON. I know. You raised this in your motion to dismiss and you raised this in your answer. Now, we are not saying that you were negligent in not raising that. What we are just putting on the record that indeed there is basis to argue that these claims have prescribed.

    Now, the reason why there was a colorable basis on the complaint filed in 2001 was that somehow the board of PNCC recognized the obligation in a special board meeting on October 20, 2000. Hindi ba ganoon 'yon?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. Yes, that is correct.

    SEN. DRILON. Why did the PNCC recognize this obligation in 2000 when it was very clear that at that point more than 10 years have lapsed since the last demand letter?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. May I volunteer an answer?cralawred

    SEN. DRILON. Please.

    MR. AGUILAR. I looked into that, Mr. Chairman, Your Honor. It was as a result of and I go to the folder letter "N." In our own demand research it was not period, Your Honor, that Punongbayan in the big folder, sir, letter "N" it was the period where PMO was selling PNCC and Punongbayan and Araullo Law Office came out with an investment brochure that indicated liabilities both to national government and to Marubeni/Radstock. So, PMO said, "For good order, can you PNCC board confirm that by board resolution?" That's the tone of the letter.

    SEN. DRILON. Confirm what? Confirm the liabilities that are contained in the Punongbayan investment prospectus both to the national government and to PNCC. That is the reason at least from the record, Your Honor, how the PNCC board got to deliberate on the Marubeni.

    THE CHAIRMAN. What paragraph? Second to the last paragraph?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. Yes. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Ito po 'yong - that"s to our recollection, in the records, that was the reason.

    SEN. DRILON. Is that the only reason why ...

    MR. AGUILAR. From just the records, Mr. Chairman, and then interviews with people who are still around.

    SEN. DRILON. You mean, you acknowledged a prescribed obligation because of this paragraph?cralawred

    MR. AGUILAR. I don't know what legal advice we were following at that time, Mr. Chairman.46 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    Besides prescription, the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) originally believed that PNCC had another formidable legal weapon against Radstock, that is, the lack of authority of Alfredo Asuncion, then Executive Vice-President of PNCC, to sign the letter of guarantee on behalf of CDCP. During the Senate hearings, the following exchange reveals the OGCC's original opinion:

    THE CHAIRMAN. What was the opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. The opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel is that PNCC should exhaust all means to resist the case using all defenses available to a guarantee and a surety that there is a valid ground for PNCC's refusal to honor or make good the alleged guarantee obligation. It appearing that from the documents submitted to the OGCC that there is no board authority in favor or authorizing Mr. Asuncion, then EVP, to sign or execute the letter of guarantee in behalf of CDCP and that said letter of guarantee is not legally binding upon or enforceable against CDCP as principals, your Honors.47

    x x x

    SEN. DRILON. Now that we have read this, what was the opinion of the Government Corporate Counsel, Mr. Cimafranca?cralawred

    MR. CIMAFRANCA. Yes, Senator, we did issue an opinion upon the request of PNCC and our opinion was that there was no valid obligation, no valid guarantee. And we incorporated that in our pleadings in court.48 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    Clearly, PNCC had strong defenses against the collection suit filed by Radstock, as originally opined by the OGCC. It is quite puzzling, therefore, that the PNCC Board, which had solid grounds to refute the legitimacy of the Marubeni loans, admitted its liability and entered into a Compromise Agreement that is manifestly and grossly prejudicial to PNCC.

    Fourth. The basis for the admission of liability for the Marubeni loans, which was an opinion of the Feria Law Office, was not even shown to the PNCC Board.

    Atty. Raymundo Francisco, the APT trustee overseeing the proposed privatization of PNCC at the time, was responsible for recommending to the PNCC Board the admission of PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans. Atty. Francisco based his recommendation solely on a mere alleged opinion of the Feria Law Office. Atty. Francisco did not bother to show this "Feria opinion" to the members of the PNCC Board, except to Atty. Renato Valdecantos, who as the then PNCC Chairman did not also show the "Feria opinion" to the other PNCC Board members. During the Senate hearings, Atty. Francisco could not produce a copy of the "Feria opinion." The Senators grilled Atty. Francisco on his recommendation to recognize PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans, thus:

    THE CHAIRMAN. x x x You were the one who wrote this letter or rather this memorandum dated 17 October 2000 to Atty. Valdecantos. Can you tell us the background why you wrote the letter acknowledging a debt which is non-existent?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I was appointed as the trustee in charge of the privatization of the PNCC at that time, sir. And I was tasked to do a study and engage the services of financial advisors as well as legal advisors to do a legal audit and financial study on the position of PNCC. I bidded out these engagements, the financial advisership went to Punongbayan and Araullo. The legal audit went to the Feria Law Offices.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Spell it. Boy Feria?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Feria - - Feria.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Lugto?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes. Yes, Your Honor. And this was the findings of the Feria Law Office - that the Marubeni account was a legal obligation.

    So, I presented this to our board. Based on the findings of the legal audit conducted by the Ferial Law Offices, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Why did you not ask the government corporate counsel? Why did you have to ask for the opinion of an outside counsel?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. That was the - that was the mandate given to us, sir, that we have to engage the ...

    THE CHAIRMAN. Mandate given by whom?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. That is what we usually do, sir, in the APT.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Ah, you get outside counsel?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, we...

    THE CHAIRMAN. Not necessarily the government corporate counsel?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. No, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. So, on the basis of the opinion of outside counsel, private, you proceeded to, in effect, recognize an obligation which is not even entered in the books of the PNCC? You probably resuscitated a non-existing obligation anymore?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Sir, I just based my recommendation on the professional findings of the law office that we engaged, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Did you not ask for the opinion of the government corporate counsel?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. No, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Why?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I felt that the engagements of the law office was sufficient, anyway we were going to raise it to the Committee on Privatization for their approval or disapproval, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. The COP?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. That's a cabinet level?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, sir. And we did that, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Now... So you sent your memo to Atty. Renato B. Valdecantos, who unfortunately is not here but I think we have to get his response to this. And as part of the minutes of special meeting with the board of directors on October 20, 2000, the board resolved in its Board Resolution No. 092-2000, the board resolved to recognize, acknowledge and confirm PNCC's obligations as of September 30, 1999, etcetera, etcetera. (A), or rather (B), Marubeni Corporation in the amount of P10,740,000.

    Now, we asked to be here because the franchise of PNCC is hanging in a balance because of the - on the questions on this acknowledgement. So we want to be educated.

    Now, the paper trail starts with your letter. So, that's it - that's my kuwan, Frank.

    Yes, Senator Drilon.

    SEN. DRILON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Yes, Atty. Francisco, you have a copy of the minutes of October 20, 2000?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I m sorry, sir, we don't have a copy.

    SEN. DRILON. May we ask the corporate secretary of PNCC to provide us with a copy?cralawred

    Okay naman andiyan siya.

    (Ms. Ogan handing the document to Mr. Francisco.)

    You have familiarized yourselves with the minutes, Atty. Francisco?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. Now, mention is made of a memorandum here on line 8, page 3 of this board's minutes. It says, "Director Francisco has prepared a memorandum requesting confirmation, acknowledgement, and ratification of this indebtedness of PNCC to the national government which was determined by Bureau of Treasury as of September 30, 1999 is 36,023,784,751. And with respect to PNCC's obligation to Marubeni, this has been determined to be in the total amount of 10,743,103,388, also as of September 30, 1999; that there is need to ratify this because there has already been a representation made with respect to the review of the financial records of PNCC by Punongbayan and Araullo, which have been included as part of the package of APT's disposition to the national government's interest in PNCC."

    You recall having made this representation as found in the minutes, I assume, Atty. Francisco?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, sir. But I d like to be refreshed on the memorandum, sir, because I don't have a copy.

    SEN. DRILON. Yes, this memorandum was cited earlier by Senator Arroyo, and maybe the secretary can give him a copy? Give him a copy?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. (Handing the document to Mr. Francisco.)

    MR. FRANCISCO. Your Honor, I have here a memorandum to the PNCC board through Atty. Valdecantos, which says that - in the last paragraph, if I may read? "May we request therefore, that a board resolution be adopted, acknowledging and confirming the aforementioned PNCC obligations with the national government and Marubeni as borne out by the due diligence audit."

    SEN. DRILON. This is the memorandum referred to in these minutes. This memorandum dated 17 October 2000 is the memorandum referred to in the minutes.

    MR. FRANCISCO. I would assume, Mr. Chairman.

    SEN. DRILON. Right.

    Now, the Punongbayan representative who was here yesterday, Mr...

    THE CHAIRMAN. Navarro.

    SEN. DRILON. ... Navarro denied that he made this recommendation.

    THE CHAIRMAN. He asked for opinion, legal opinion.

    SEN. DRILON. He said that they never made this representation and the transcript will bear us out. They said that they never made this representation that the account of Marubeni should be recognized.

    MR. FRANCISCO. Mr. Chairman, in the memorandum, I only mentioned here the acknowledgement and confirmation of the PNCC obligations. I was not asking for a ratification. I never mentioned ratification in the memorandum. I just based my memo based on the due diligence audit of the Feria Law Offices.

    SEN. DRILON. Can you say that again? You never asked for a ratification...

    MR. FRANCISCO. No. I never mentioned in my memorandum that I was asking for a ratification. I was just - in my memo it says, "acknowledging and confirming the PNCC obligation." This was what ...

    SEN. DRILON. Isn't it the same as ratification? I mean, what's the difference?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I - well, my memorandum was meant really just to confirm the findings of the legal audit as ...

    SEN. DRILON. In your mind as a lawyer, Atty. Francisco, there's a difference between ratification and - what's your term? - - acknowledgment and confirmation?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Well, I guess there's no difference, Mr. Chairman.

    SEN. DRILON. Right.

    Anyway, just of record, the Punongbayan representatives here yesterday said that they never made such representation.

    In any case, now you re saying it's the Feria Law Office who rendered that opinion? Can we - you know, yesterday we were asking for a copy of this opinion but we were never furnished one. The ... no less than the Chairman of this Committee was asking for a copy.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Well, copy of the opinion...

    MS. OGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we were never furnished a copy of this opinion because it's opinion rendered for the Asset Privatization Trust which is its client, not the PNCC, Mr. Chairman.

    THE CHAIRMAN. All right. The question is whether - but you see, this is a memorandum of Atty. Francisco to the Chairman of the Asset Privatization Trust. You say now that you were never furnished a copy because that's supposed to be with the Asset ...

    MS. OGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    THE CHAIRMAN. ... but yet the action of - or rather the opinion of the Feria Law Offices was in effect adopted by the board of directors of PNCC in its minutes of October 20, 2000 where you are the corporate secretary, Ms. Ogan.

    MS. OGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    THE CHAIRMAN. So, what I am saying is that this opinion or rather the opinion of the Feria Law Offices of which you don't have a copy?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. Yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. And the reason being that, it does not concern the PNCC because that's an opinion rendered for APT and not for the PNCC.

    MS. OGAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was what we were told although we made several requests to the APT, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. All right. Now, since it was for the APT and not for the PNCC, I ask the question why did PNCC adopt it? That was not for the consumption of PNCC. It was for the consumption of the Asset Privatization Trust. And that is what Atty. Francisco says and it's confirmed by you saying that this was a memo - you don't have a copy because this was sought for by APT and the Feria Law Offices just provided an opinion - provided the APT with an opinion. So, as corporate secretary, the board of directors of PNCC adopted it, recognized the Marubeni Corporation.

    You read the minutes of the October 20, 2000 meeting of the board of directors on Item V. The resolution speaks of .. so, go ahead.

    MS. OGAN. I gave my copies. Yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. In effect the Feria Law Offices' opinion was for the consumption of the APT.

    MS. OGAN. That was what we were told, Mr. Chairman.

    THE CHAIRMAN. And you were not even provided with a copy.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Yet you adopted it.

    MS. OGAN. Yes, sir.

    SEN DRILON. Considering you were the corporate secretary.

    THE CHAIRMAN. She was the corporate secretary.

    SEN. DRILON. She was just recording the minutes.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Yes, she was recording.

    Now, we are asking you now why it was taken up?cralawred

    MS. OGAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, this was mentioned in the memorandum of Atty. Francisco, memorandum to the board.

    SEN. DRILON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Francisco represented APT in the board of PNCC. And is that correct, Mr. Francisco?cralawred

    THE CHAIRMAN. You re an ex-officio member.

    SEN. DRILON. Yes.

    MR. FRANCISCO. Ex-officio member only, sir, as trustee in charge of the privatization of PNCC.

    SEN. DRILON. With the permission of Mr. Chair, may I ask a question...

    THE CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes, Senator Drilon.

    SEN. DRILON. Atty. Francisco, you sat in the PNCC board as APT representative, you are a lawyer, there was a legal opinion of Feria, Feria, Lugto, Lao Law Offices which you cited in your memorandum. Did you discuss - first, did you give a copy of this opinion to PNCC?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I gave a copy of this opinion, sir, to our chairman who was also a member of the board of PNCC, Mr. Valdecantos, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. And because he was...

    MR. FRANCISCO. Because he was my immediate boss in the APT.

    SEN. DRILON. Apparently, [it] just ended up in the personal possession of Mr. Valdecantos because the corporate secretary, Glenda Ogan, who is supposed to be the custodian of the records of the board never saw a copy of this.

    MR. FRANCISCO. Well, sir, my - the copy that I gave was to Mr. Valdecantos because he was the one sitting in the PNCC board, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. No, you sit in the board.

    MR. FRANCISCO. I was just an ex-officio member. And all my reports were coursed through our Chairman, Mr. Valdecantos, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. Now, did you ever tell the board that there is a legal position taken or at least from the documents it is possible that the claim has prescribed?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I took this up in the board meeting of the PNCC at that time and I told them about this matter, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. No, you told them that the claim could have, under the law, could have prescribed?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. No, sir.

    SEN. DRILON. Why? You mean, you didn't tell the board that it is possible that this liability is no longer a valid liability because it has prescribed?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. I did not dwell into the findings anymore, sir, because I found the professional opinion of the Feria Law Office to be sufficient.49 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    Atty. Francisco's act of recommending to the PNCC Board the acknowledgment of the Marubeni loans based only on an opinion of a private law firm, without consulting the OGCC and without showing this opinion to the members of the PNCC Board except to Atty. Valdecantos, reflects how shockingly little his concern was for PNCC, contrary to his claim that "he only had the interest of PNCC at heart." In fact, if what was involved was his own money, Atty. Francisco would have preferred not just two, but at least three different opinions on how to deal with the matter, and he would have maintained his non-liability.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. x x x

    All right. And lastly, just to clear our minds, there has always been this finger-pointing, of course, whenever - this is typical Filipino. When they're caught in a bind, they always point a finger, they pretend they don't know. And it just amazes me that you have been appointed trustees, meaning, representatives of the Filipino people, that's what you were at APT, right? You were not Erap's representatives, you were representative of the Filipino people and you were tasked to conserve the assets that that had been confiscated from various cronies of the previous administration. And here, you are asked to recognize the P10 billion debt and you point only to one law firm. If you have cancer, don't you to a second opinion, a second doctor or a third doctor? This is just a question. I am just asking you for your opinion if you would take the advice of the first doctor who tells you that he's got to open you up.

    MR. FRANCISCO. I would go to three or more doctors, sir.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. Three or more. Yeah, that's right. And in this case the APT did not do so.

    MR. FRANCISCO. We relied on the findings of the'

    SEN. OSMEÑA. If these were your money, would you have gone also to obtain a second, third opinion from other law firms. Kung pera mo itong 10 billion na ito. Siguro you're not gonna give it up that easily ano, 'di ba?cralawred

    MR. FRANCISCO. Yes, sir.

    SEN. OSMEÑA. You'll probably keep it in court for the next 20 years.

    x x x x50 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    This is a clear admission by Atty. Francisco of bad faith in directing the affairs of PNCC - that he would not have recognized the Marubeni loans if his own funds were involved or if he were the owner of PNCC.

    The PNCC Board admitted liability for the P10.743 billion Marubeni loans without seeing, reading or discussing the "Feria opinion" which was the sole basis for its admission of liability. Such act surely goes against ordinary human nature, and amounts to gross negligence and utter bad faith, even bordering on fraud, on the part of the PNCC Board in directing the affairs of the corporation. Owing loyalty to PNCC and its stockholders, the PNCC Board should have exercised utmost care and diligence in admitting a gargantuan debt of P10.743 billion that would certainly force PNCC into insolvency, a debt that previous PNCC Boards in the last two decades consistently refused to admit.

    Instead, the PNCC Board admitted PNCC's liability for the Marubeni loans relying solely on a mere opinion of a private law office, which opinion the PNCC Board members never saw, except for Atty. Valdecantos and Atty. Francisco. The PNCC Board knew that PNCC, as a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), must rely "exclusively" on the opinion of the OGCC. Section 1 of Memorandum Circular No. 9 dated 27 August 1998 issued by the President states:

    SECTION 1. All legal matters pertaining to government-owned or controlled corporations, their subsidiaries, other corporate off-springs and government acquired asset corporations (GOCCs) shall be exclusively referred to and handled by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    The PNCC Board acted in bad faith in relying on the opinion of a private lawyer knowing that PNCC is required to rely "exclusively" on the OGCC's opinion. Worse, the PNCC Board, in admitting liability for P10.743 billion, relied on the recommendation of a private lawyer whose opinion the PNCC Board members have not even seen.

    During the oral arguments, Atty. Sison explained to the Court that the intention of APT was for the PNCC Board merely to disclose the claim of Marubeni as part of APT's full disclosure policy to prospective buyers of PNCC. Atty. Sison stated that it was not the intention of APT for the PNCC Board to admit liability for the Marubeni loans, thus:

    x x x It was the Asset Privatization Trust A-P-T that was tasked to sell the company. The A-P-T, for purposes of disclosure statements, tasked the Feria Law Office to handle the documentation and the study of all legal issues that had to be resolved or clarified for the information of prospective bidders and or buyers. In the performance of its assigned task the Feria Law Office came upon the Marubeni claim and mentioned that the APTC and/or PNCC must disclose that there is a claim by Marubeni against PNCC for purposes of satisfying the requirements of full disclosure. This seemingly innocent statement or requirement made by the Feria Law Office was then taken by two officials of the Asset Privatization Trust and with malice aforethought turned it into the basis for a multi-billion peso debt by the now government owned and/or controlled PNCC. x x x.51 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    While the PNCC Board passed Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000 amending Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000, such amendment merely added conditions for the recognition of the Marubeni loans, namely, subjecting the recognition to a final determination by COA of the amount involved and to the declaration by OGCC of the legality of PNCC's liability. However, the PNCC Board reiterated and stood firm that it "recognizes, acknowledges and confirms its obligations" for the Marubeni loans. Apparently, Board Resolution No. BD-099-2000 was a futile attempt to "revoke" Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000. Atty. Alfredo Laya, Jr., a former PNCC Director, spoke on his protests against Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 at the Senate hearings, thus:

    MR. LAYA. Mr. Chairman, if I can'

    THE CHAIRMAN. Were you also at the board?cralawred

    MR. LAYA. At that time, yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. Okay, go ahead.

    MR. LAYA. That's why if - maybe this can help clarify the sequence. There was this meeting on October 20. This matter of the Marubeni liability or account was also discussed. Mr. Macasaet, if I may try to refresh. And there was some discussion, sir, and in fact, they were saying even at that stage that there should be a COA or an OGCC audit. Now, that was during the discussion of October 20. Later on, the minutes came out. The practice, then, sir, was for the minutes to come out at the start of the meeting of the subsequent. So the minutes of October 20 came out on November 22 and then we were going over it. And that is in the subsequent minutes of the meeting'

    THE CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt. You were taking up in your November 22 meeting the October 20 minutes?cralawred

    MR. LAYA. Yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. This minutes that we have?cralawred

    MR. LAYA. Yes, sir.

    THE CHAIRMAN. All right, go ahead.

    MR. LAYA. Now, in the November 22 meeting, we noticed this resolution already for confirmation of the board - proceedings of October 20. So immediately we made - actually, protest would be a better term for that - we protested the wording of the resolution and that's why we came up with this resolution amending the October 20 resolution.

    SEN. DRILON. So you are saying, Mr. Laya, that the minutes of October 20 did not accurately reflect the decisions that you made on October 20 because you were saying that this recognition should be subject to OGCC and COA? You seem to imply and we want to make it - and I want to get that for the record. You seem to imply that there was no decision to recognize the obligation during that meeting because you wanted it to subject it to COA and OGCC, is that correct?cralawred

    MR. LAYA. Yes, your Honor.

    SEN. DRILON. So how did...

    MR. LAYA. That's my understanding of the proceedings at that time, that's why in the subsequent November 22 meeting, we raised this point about obtaining a COA and OGCC opinion.

    SEN. DRILON. Yes. But you know, the November 22 meeting repeated the wording of the resolution previously adopted only now you are saying subject to final determination which is completely of different import from what you are saying was your understanding of the decision arrived at on October 20.

    MR. LAYA. Yes, sir. Because our thinking then...

    SEN. DRILON. What do you mean, yes, sir?cralawred

    MR. LAYA. It's just a claim under discussion but then the way it is translated, as the minutes of October 20 were not really verbatim.

    SEN. DRILON. So, you never intended to recognize the obligation.

    MR. LAYA. I think so, sir. That was our - personally, that was my position.

    SEN. DRILON. How did it happen, Corporate Secretary Ogan, that the minutes did not reflect what the board'

    THE CHAIRMAN. Ms. Pasetes'

    MS. PASETES. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    THE CHAIRMAN. - you are the chief financial officer of PNCC.

    MS. PASETES. Your Honor, before that November 22 board meeting, management headed by Mr. Rolando Macasaet, myself and Atty. Ogan had a discussion about the recognition of the obligations of 10 billion of Marubeni and 36 billion of the national government on whether to recognize this as an obligation in our books or recognize it as an obligation in the pro forma financial statement to be used for the privatization of PNCC because recognizing both obligations in the books of PNCC would defeat our going concern status and that is where the position of the president then, Mr. Macasaet, stemmed from and he went back to the board and moved to reconsider the position of October 20, 2000, Mr. Chair.52 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    In other words, despite Atty. Laya's objections to PNCC's admitting liability for the Marubeni loans, the PNCC Board still admitted the same and merely imposed additional conditions to temper somehow the devastating effects of Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000.

    The act of the PNCC Board in issuing Board Resolution No. BD-092-2000 expressly admitting liability for the Marubeni loans demonstrates the PNCC Board's gross and willful disregard of the requisite care and diligence in managing the affairs of PNCC, amounting to bad faith and resulting in grave and irreparable injury to PNCC and its stockholders. This reckless and treacherous move on the part of the PNCC Board clearly constitutes a serious breach of its fiduciary duty to PNCC and its stockholders, rendering the members of the PNCC Board liable under Section 31 of the Corporation Code, which provides:

    SEC. 31. Liability of directors, trustees or officers. - - Directors or trustees who willfully and knowingly vote for or assent to patently unlawful acts of the corporation or who are guilty of gross negligence or bad faith in directing the affairs of the corporation or acquire any personal or pecuniary interest in conflict with their duty as such directors or trustees shall be liable jointly and severally for all damages resulting therefrom suffered by the corporation, its stockholders or members and other persons.

    When a director, trustee or officer attempts to acquire or acquires, in violation of his duty, any interest adverse to the corporation in respect of any matter which has been reposed in him in confidence, as to which equity imposes a disability upon him to deal in his own behalf, he shall be liable as a trustee for the corporation and must account for the profits which otherwise would have accrued to the corporation.

    Soon after the short-lived Estrada Administration, the PNCC Board revoked its previous admission of liability for the Marubeni loans. During the oral arguments, Atty. Sison narrated to the Court:

    x x x After President Estrada was ousted, I was appointed as President and Chairman of PNCC in April of 2001, this particular board resolution was brought to my attention and I immediately put the matter before the board. I had no problem in convincing them to reverse the recognition as it was illegal and had no basis in fact. The vote to overturn that resolution was unanimous. Strange to say that some who voted to overturn the recognition were part of the old board that approved it. Stranger still, Renato Valdecantos who was still a member of the Board voted in favor of reversing the resolution he himself instigated and pushed. Some of the board members who voted to recognize the obligation of Marubeni even came to me privately and said "pinilit lang kami." x x x.53 (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    In approving PNCC Board Resolution Nos. BD-092-2000 and BD-099-2000, the PNCC Board caused undue injury to the Government and gave unwarranted benefits to Radstock, through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence of the PNCC Board. Such acts are declared under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as "corrupt practices xxx and xxx unlawful." Being unlawful and criminal acts, these PNCC Board Resolutions are void ab initio and cannot be implemented or in any way given effect by the Executive or Judicial branch of the Government.

    Not content with forcing PNCC to commit corporate suicide with the admission of liability for the Marubeni loans under Board Resolution Nos. BD-092-2000 and BD-099-2000, the PNCC Board drove the last nail on PNCC's coffin when the PNCC Board entered into the manifestly and grossly disadvantageous Compromise Agreement with Radstock. This time, the OGCC, headed by Agnes DST Devanadera, reversed itself and recommended approval of the Compromise Agreement to the PNCC Board. As Atty. Sison explained to the Court during the oral arguments:

    x x x While the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, Radstock in a rare display of extreme generosity, conveniently convinced the Board of PNCC to enter into a compromise agreement for - the amount of the judgment rendered by the RTC or P6.5 Billion Pesos. This time the OGCC, under the leadership of now Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera, approved the compromise agreement abandoning the previous OGCC position that PNCC had a meritorious case and would be hard press to lose the case. What is strange is that although the compromise agreement we seek to stop ostensibly is for P6.5 Billion only, truth and in fact, the agreement agrees to convey to Radstock all or substantially all of the assets of PNCC worth P18 Billion Pesos. There are three items that are undervalued here, the real estate that was turned over as a result of the controversial agreement, the toll revenues that were being assigned and the value of the new shares of PNCC the difference is about P12 Billion Pesos. x x x (Emphasis supplied)cralawlibrary

    V.
    The Compromise Agreement is Void
    for Being Contrary to the Constitution,
    Existing Laws, and Public Policy

    For a better understanding of the present case, the pertinent terms and conditions of the Compromise Agreement between PNCC and Radstock are quoted below:

    COMPROMISE AGREEMENT

    KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

    This Agreement made and entered into this 17th day of August 2006, in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila, Philippines, by and between:

    PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a government acquired asset corporation, created and existing under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with principal office address at EDSA corner Reliance Street, Mandaluyong City, Philippines, duly represented herein by its Chairman ARTHUR N. AGUILAR, pursuant to a Board Resolution attached herewith as Annex "A" and made an integral part hereof, hereinafter referred to as PNCC;

    - and -

    RADSTOCK SECURITIES LIMITED, a private corporation incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, with office address at Suite 1402 1 Duddell Street, Central Hongkong duly-represented herein by its Director, CARLOS G. DOMINGUEZ, pursuant to a Board Resolution attached herewith as Annex "B" and made an integral part hereof, hereinafter referred to as RADSTOCK.

    WITNESSETH:

    WHEREAS, on January 15, 2001, RADSTOCK, as assignee of Marubeni Corporation, filed a complaint for sum of money and damages with application for a writ of preliminary attachment with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Mandaluyong City, docketed as Civil Case No. MC-01-1398, to collect on PNCC's guarantees on the unpaid loan obligations of CDCP Mining Corporation as provided under an Advance Payment Agreement and Loan Agreement;

    WHEREAS, on December 10, 2002, the RTC of Mandaluyong rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff RADSTOCK directing PNCC to pay the total amount of Thirteen Billion One Hundred Fifty One Million Nine Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Twenty-Eight Pesos (P13,151,956,528.00) with interest from October 15, 2001 plus Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) as attorney's fees.

    WHEREAS, PNCC had elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 66654) on Certiorari and thereafter, to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 156887) which Courts have consistently ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied PNCC's Motion to Dismiss which sets forth similar or substantially the same grounds or defenses as those raised in PNCC's Answer;

    WHEREAS, the case has remained pending for almost six (6) years even after the main action was appealed to the Court of Appeals;

    WHEREAS, on the basis of the RTC Decision dated December 10, 2002, the current value of the judgment debt against PNCC stands at P17,040,843,968.00 as of July 31, 2006 (the "Judgment Debt");

    WHEREAS, RADSTOCK is willing to settle the case at the reduced Compromise Amount of Six Billion One Hundred Ninety-Six Million Pesos (P6,196,000,000.00) which may be paid by PNCC, either in cash or in kind to avoid the trouble and inconvenience of further litigation as a gesture of goodwill and cooperation;

    WHEREAS, it is an established legal policy or principle that litigants in civil cases should be encouraged to compromise or amicably settle their claims not only to avoid litigation but also to put an end to one already commenced (Articles 2028 and 2029, Civil Code);

    WHEREAS, this Compromise Agreement has been approved by the respective Board of Directors of both PNCC and RADSTOCK, subject to the approval of the Honorable Court;

    NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises, and the mutual covenants, stipulations and agreements herein contained, PNCC and RADSTOCK have agreed to amicably settle the above captioned Radstock case under the following terms and conditions:

    1. RADSTOCK agrees to receive and accept from PNCC in full and complete settlement of the Judgment Debt, the reduced amount of Six Billion, One Hundred Ninety-Six Million Pesos (P6,196,000,000.00) (the "Compromise Amount").

    2. This Compromise Amount shall be paid by PNCC to RADSTOCK in the following manner:

    A. PNCC shall assign to a third party assignee to be designated by RADSTOCK all its rights and interests to the following real properties provided the assignee shall be duly qualified to own real properties in the Philippines;

    (1) PNCC's rights over that parcel of land located in Pasay City with a total area of One Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Five Hundred Forty-Eight (129,548) square meters, more or less, and which is covered by and more particularly described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-34997 of the Registry of Deeds for Pasay City. The transfer value is P3,817,779,000.00.

    PNCC's rights and interests in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-34997 of the Registry of Deeds for Pasay City is defined and delineated by Administrative Order No. 397, Series of 1998, and RADSTOCK is fully aware and recognizes that PNCC has an undertaking to cede at least 2 hectares of this property to its creditor, the Philippine National Bank; and that furthermore, the Government Service Insurance System has also a current and existing claim in the nature of boundary conflicts, which undertaking and claim will not result in the diminution of area or value of the property. Radstock recognizes and acknowledges the rights and interests of GSIS over the said property.

    (2) T-452587 (T-23646) - Parañaque (5,123 sq. m.) subject to the clarification of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO) claims thereon. The transfer value is P45,000,900.00.

    (3) T-49499 (529715 including T-68146-G (S-29716) (1,9747-A)-Parañaque (107 sq. m.) (54 sq. m.) subject to the clarification of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO) claims thereon. The transfer value is P1,409,100.00.

    (4) 5-29716-Parañaque (27,762 sq. m.) subject to the clarification of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO) claims thereon. The transfer value is P242,917,500.00.

    (5) P-169 - Tagaytay (49,107 sq. m.). The transfer value is P13,749,400.00.

    (6) P-170 - Tagaytay (49,100 sq. m.). The transfer value is P13,749,400.00.

    (7) N-3320 - Town and Country Estate, Antipolo (10,000 sq. m.). The transfer value is P16,800,000.00.

    (8) N-7424 - Antipolo (840 sq. m.). The transfer value is P940,800.00.

    (9) N-7425 - Antipolo (850 sq. m.). The transfer value is P952,000.00.

    (10) N-7426 - Antipolo (958 sq. m.). The transfer value is P1,073,100.00.

    (11) T-485276 - Antipolo (741 sq. m.). The transfer value is P830,200.00.

    (12) T-485277 - Antipolo (680 sq. m.). The transfer value is P761,600.00.

    (13) T-485278 - Antipolo (701 sq. m.). The transfer value is P785,400.00.

    (14) T-131500 - Bulacan (CDCP Farms Corp.) (4,945 sq, m.). The transfer value is P6,475,000.00.

    (15) T-131501 - Bulacan (678 sq. m.). The transfer value is P887,600.00.

    (16) T-26,154 (M) - Bocaue, Bulacan (2,841 sq. m.). The transfer value is P3,779,300.00.

    (17) T-29,308 (M) - Bocaue, Bulacan (733 sq. m.). The transfer value is P974,400.00.

    (18) T-29,309 (M) Bocaue, Bulacan (1,141 sq. m.). The transfer value is P1,517,600.00.

    (19) T-260578 (R. Bengzon) Sta. Rita, Guiguinto, Bulacan (20,000 sq. m.). The transfer value is P25,200,000.00.

    The transfer values of the foregoing properties are based on 70% of the appraised value of the respective properties.

    b. PNCC shall issue to RADSTOCK or its assignee common shares of the capital stock of PNCC issued at par value which shall comprise 20% of the outstanding capital stock of PNCC after the conversion to equity of the debt exposure of the Privatization Management Office (PMO) and the National Development Company (NDC) and other government agencies and creditors such that the total government holdings shall not fall below 70% voting equity subject to the approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and ratification of PNCC's stockholders, if necessary. The assigned value of the shares issued to RADSTOCK is P713 Million based on the approximate last trading price of PNCC shares in the Philippine Stock Exchange as the date of this agreement, based further on current generally accepted accounting standards which stipulates the valuation of shares to be based on the lower of cost or market value.

    Subject to the procurement of any and all necessary approvals from the relevant governmental authorities, PNCC shall deliver to RADSTOCK an instrument evidencing an undertaking of the Privatization and Management Office (PMO) to give RADSTOCK or its assignee the right to match any offer to buy the shares of the capital stock and debts of PNCC held by PMO, in the event the same shares and debt are offered for privatization.

    c. PNCC shall assign to RADSTOCK or its assignee 50% of the PNCC's 6% share in the gross toll revenue of the Manila North Tollways Corporation (MNTC), with a Net Present Value of P1.287 Billion computed in the manner outlined in Annex "C" herein attached as an integral part hereof, that shall be due and owing to PNCC pursuant to the Joint Venture Agreement between PNCC and First Philippine Infrastructure Development Corp. dated August 29, 1995 and other related existing agreements, commencing in 2008. It shall be understood that as a result of this assignment, PNCC shall charge and withhold the amounts, if any, pertaining to taxes due on the amounts assigned.

    Under the Compromise Agreement, PNCC shall pay Radstock the reduced amount of P6,185,000,000.00 in full settlement of PNCC's guarantee of CDCP Mining's debt allegedly totaling P17,040,843,968.00 as of 31 July 2006. To satisfy its reduced obligation, PNCC undertakes to (1) "assign to a third party assignee to be designated by Radstock all its rights and interests" to the listed real properties therein; (2) issue to Radstock or its assignee common shares of the capital stock of PNCC issued at par value which shall comprise 20% of the outstanding capital stock of PNCC; and (3) assign to Radstock or its assignee 50% of PNCC's 6% share, for the next 27 years (2008-2035), in the gross toll revenues of the Manila North Tollways Corporation.

    A. The PNCC Board has no power to compromise
    the P6.185 billion amount.

    Does the PNCC Board have the power to compromise the P6.185 billion "reduced" amount? The answer is in the negative.???ñr?bl?š ??r

    G.R. No. 178158 and G.R. NO. 180428 - Strategic Alliance Development Corporation v. Radstock Securities Limited and Philippine National Construction corporation


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED