SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

DISSENTING OPINION

ROMERO, J.:

I dissent.

The Court, in its decision promulgated on January 29, 1998, upheld the conviction of petitioner Marcos in Criminal Case No. 17450 and ordered her to reimburse the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) the amount of P189,372,000.00. On February 18, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision on the grounds, inter alia, (a) that it was Dans, not petitioner Marcos, who entered into the Lease Agreement (Exh. "B"); (b) that the prosecution was not able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the terms and conditions of said Lease Agreement were manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the Government; and (c) that the promulgation of the assailed decision by the Sandiganbayan's First Division after the constitution of Special Division rendered said judgment null and void.

As can be readily observed, these grounds merely reprise the issues already raised in the petition and adequately tackled in the challenged decision. Nevertheless, after the hearing of oral arguments before the Court en banc held on September 1998, I feel the need to discuss further some of the points raised thereat.

Petitioner insists that the acquittal of Jose P. Dans, Jr., her co-accused in Criminal Case No. 17450, should also have benefited her because the prosecution failed to prove that she entered into the lease agreement (Exhibit "B") in behalf of LRTA. Since the LRTA was represented by Dans, who was acquitted, and no conspiracy was established between them, then petitioner should also have been exonerated.

While there is no dispute that the alleged conspiracy between petitioner and Dans in executing the lease agreement (Exhibit "B") was never proven by the prosecution, there is likewise no question, in fact, it is only too obvious, that petitioner could not have signed in behalf of the LRTA at the time even if she had wanted to do so because she was already signing for another party, the PGH Foundation, Inc. This does not detract from the admitted fact that petitioner was the Chairman of the LRTA during the negotiations. Expectedly, Petitioner, despite extensively lifting excerpts from the assailed decision, purposely omitted the Court's discussion on how the lease transaction was tainted by her conflict of interest, a glaring fact which has been repeatedly glossed over by petitioner and her counsel in the course of these proceedings. Thus, we stated:

"Indubitably, there was some kind of conflict of interest in the premises. Marcos and Dans, who were then Cabinet members, occupied the highest positions in the Boards of the LRTA and the PGHFI in a concurrent capacity at the time the questioned deals were made. They were, as it were, playing both ends; but on paper, one was acting for the lessor and the other for the lessee. The fact that petitioners were cleared of the charge that they acted improperly in accepting seats in the PGHFI Board of Trustees at the time when it had pending business transactions with the LRTA, of which they were also officers is of no moment. First, their acquittal in Criminal Case No. 17451 and No. 17452 was simply due to the insufficiency of the informations. Second, the accusation in said informations have no bearing whatsoever on the subject matter of the other cases filed against them as signatories to the assailed lease agreements. Even Justice Garchitorena had occasion to advert to this conflict of interest in his resolution of November 13, 1996."¹cräläwvirtualibräry

There is no dispute that petitioner was the chair of the LRTA at the time of execution of the lease agreement, but she chose to "enter" it as chair of the PGHFI. Moreover, it was conclusively demonstrated at the hearing on September 10, 1998, that although Dans was "duly authorized" to sign for the LRTA, it was the entire LRTA through its policy-making body, which approved the lease agreement. It is, therefore, erroneous for petitioner to argue that she did not enter into said agreement on behalf of the government because, certainly, she did. She may not have signed for the LRTA but she was one of those who approved it and duly authorized Dans to sign for the LRTA.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that a lease agreement is a bilateral contract which gives rise to reciprocal rights and obligations on the part of the lessor and the lessee. It is an agreement which becomes a contract when the parties signify their consent or assent thereto, thereby reflecting the meeting of the minds between said parties. By himself, the lessor cannot enter into a contract of lease; there must be another party, the lessee, who will take possession of the property subject of the lease during its effectivity. Thus, when Dans "entered" into the lease agreement, he did so as representative of the lessor; petitioner did so in representation of the lessee. It is erroneous to state, as petitioner maintains in her motion for reconsideration, that she did not enter into the lease contract simply because she did not sign it, for certainly she did, as one of two indispensable parties. The immediate beneficiary of the lease was the government, represented by the LRTA. For all intents and purposes, brushing aside semantics, the lease agreement was entered into in behalf of the Government by both petitioner and Dans.

Shifting now to the alleged procedural anomaly which attended the promulgation of the assailed decision of the Sandiganbayan's First Division on account of Justice Garchitorena's unilateral dissolution of the Special Division which he himself had formed to break a voting impasse, I find petitioner's arguments in this regard to be shallow and self-serving, as will be presently elucidated.

The principle that a Special Division in the Sandiganbayan cannot be stripped of jurisdiction once it is vested with the same was originally a rule in Civil Procedure first applied to trial courts, later to appellate courts. It is applicable to single sala courts or entire courts, but not to Divisions. Even the non-forum shopping rules refers to the filing of cases involving the same parties and causes of action from one court to another, and not from one Division to another.

Secondly, there is no rule in the Sandiganbayan authorizing or disauthorizing a Chairman of a Division from dissolving a Special Division once it has effectively become functus officio.

Third, by analogy, in appellate courts, such as the Court of Appeals, rules are fixed and practices have been established. In the Supreme Court, however, there are no rules regarding the dissolution of Special Divisions; hence, there is nothing against which the alleged procedural irregularities can be measured.

Finally, assuming arguendo that there was a lapse in procedure in the Sandiganbayan, this will not render the judgment null and void. If at all, it may indicate the bias of the judge concerned which may be proved in an administrative case, but certainly not to render the judgment null and void.

For these reason, I vote to dissent from the majority opinion.

Endnotes:

---

¹ Decision p. 19