ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 140993. June 7, 2000]

REP. OF THE PHILS. vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

G.R. No. 140993 (Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government vs. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Serapion C. Basalo Memorial Foundation College formerly Mariano Marcos Memorial Foundation College, et al.)

Alleging that the Serapion Basalo Memorial Foundation College, the Agro-industrial Foundation College, the Davao Institute of Agriculture Foundation College, and the Agro-Far East Foundation College (hereafter Foundation Colleges) are ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered the same on May 12, 1986. Thereafter, the PCGG filed a complaint with the Sandiganbayan for reconveyance of alleged ill-gotten wealth, including the foundation colleges, against the Marcoses. On December 1, 1998, the foundation colleges filed a motion to declare the writ of sequestration automatically lifted on the ground that the writ was signed by only one commissioner, whereas as held in Republic v. Sandiganbayan (293 SCRA 440, 1998) a writ of sequestration must be signed by at least two PCGG commissioners.

The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and declared the writ of sequestration issued against foundation colleges lifted. The PCGG's motion for reconsideration was denied; hence the instant petition with PCGG asserting that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it took cognizance of the motion to declare the writ of sequestration automatically lifted despite the fact that the motion had not been served on all parties concerned, specifically, the Marcoses, who had admitted that they owned the foundation colleges.

PCGG invokes Section 5, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that:

Sec. 5. Notice of Hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

PCGG further contends that the writ of sequestration issued was signed, not only by one commissioner, but by two. In support of this argument, they presented in evidence a copy of the writ of sequestration signed by two commissioners received by a certain Henry Balayan.

PCGG's claim that the foundation colleges' motion to lift the writ of sequestration should be denied due to non-service of the same upon the Marcoses deserves scant consideration. While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully and even meticulously observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the administration of justice (Javier v. CA, 183 SCRA 171 [1990]). In the instant case, to consider the failure of the foundation colleges to serve a copy of the motion upon the Marcoses (despite service of the motion upon the adverse party) as ground to deny the same would be to sacrifice substance at the altar of technicalities. The sole purpose of processes or pleadings, their forms or contents, is to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties. They were promulgated, not to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote, the administration of justice. They do not constitute the thing itself, which courts are always striving to secure to litigants. They are designed as the means best adapted to obtain that thing. In other words, they are means to an end (Herrera, Remedial law, Vol. I, p. 168). PCGG, however, would have this Court make them lose the character of the one to be the other. To do so would put the administration of justice in jeopardy and this Court correspondingly remiss in the performance of its duty.

As to the claim of PCGG that the writ of sequestration issued against the foundation colleges was actually signed by two commissioners, it must be pointed out that the Sandiganbayan, after a thorough examination of the two existing copies of the writ of sequestration, one signed by one commissioner, the other by two commissioners, found the copy of the writ of sequestration presented by the foundation colleges to be the one more worthy of belief. As we declared in Cosep v. People (290 SCRA 378 [1998]), the Sandiganbayan's factual findings are generally accorded respect, even finality, unless: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or premised on the absence of evidence on record. In the instant case, none of the exceptions is present. In fact, the PCGG Resident Representative for Regions X and XI even certified that the writ of sequestration on file in his office bears the signature of only one commissioner. Moreover, the President and Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Agro-Industrial Foundation College and of the Serapion Basalo Memorial Foundation College executed a sworn statement stating that no person by the name of Henry Balayan was ever employed by them.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE