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
BAR REVIEWER ON LABOR LAW 2014 (2nd) Edition - By Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan


Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 











UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE




 
 



chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

 

[G.R. No. 128606.June 18, 2001]

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

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 18 2001.

G.R. No. 128606(Republic of the Philippines vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.)

This resolves the Motion for Clarification filed by intervenor Victor Africa dated January 5, 2001.

On December 4, 2000, this Court promulgated its Decision in this case denying the petition for review and affirming the Resolutions of the Sandiganbayan dated December 6, 1996 and March 17, 1997 in Civil Case No. 0009. Subsequently, intervenor Africa filed the aforesaid Motion for Clarification, praying that petitioner Republic's status as shareholder of Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) be clarified lest Petitioner take the Decision to mean that its right to the shares has been upheld.

Previously, intervenor argued in his Motion for Leave to File comment-in-intervention that he had filed a motion before the Sandiganbayan questioning the validity of the acquisition by petitioner, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), of the Shares of stock in ETPI. True, this Court's Decision merely ruled that the PCGG failed to seasonably exercise its preemptive right to the shares of Stock of ETPI, without squarely resolving the issue of whether or not the PCGG, in the first place, validly became a stockholder of ETPI, for the sample reason that said issue was not for this Court to pass upon. Consequently, intervenor fears that the Decision might be construed as tacitly upholding the PCGG's right as such stockholder.

ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Clarification is GRANTED. The dated December 4, 2000 should not be construed to mean that PCGG rightfully became a stockholder of ETPI, said issue being within the competence and jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan to resolve.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 

 



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