ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 138598.� December 14, 2004]

ASSET PRIVATIZATION vs. SANDIGANBAYAN

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 14 2004.

GR No. 138598 (ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN et al.)

Before the Court are COA's 30 May 2004 Compliance, private respondent's 7 June 2004 Motion to Fix PJI's Obligation to PMO x x x, petitioner's 16 June 2004 Comment, COA's 26 June 2004 Compliance, private respondent's 5 July 2004 Comment, OSG's 8 July 2004 Motion for Leave to File Comment and OSG's 28 June 2004 Comment.

Per the Court's 24 February 2004 Resolution, COA recomputed PJI's obligations to be P60,428,390.42. Private respondent, on the other hand, argued that the unpaid balance should only be P74,894.73 for Industrial Loan C-IX plus P1,195,440.58 for the "Additional Obligations" for a total of P1,270,335.31.

The variance in computation stems from 1) a difference in the manner of applying the "resulting overpayment" -- of the Advances on Guaranteed Loans (Schedule A) and the Industrial Loan Foreign Currency (Schedule B) -- totaling P56,500,105.04 and 2) computation of penalties and interests on the additional obligations. COA did not apply the P56,500,105.04 simultaneously to Industrial Loan C-IX (Schedule C) on the dates the payments were remitted. Reasoning that the overpayment on the two loans merely resulted from using -- in the recomputation -- the reduced rates required by the Court, COA concluded that "there was no actual overpayment" on the Advances on Guaranteed Loans and the Industrial Loan Foreign Currency. Hence, it continued computing interests on the principal -- unreduced by the payments which are free for application to this principal loan -- of Industrial Loan C-IX.

The Commission claims that instead of merely computing mechanically, it acted "to determine a fair settlement of PJI's obligations to APT/PMO." Thus, it came up with the unpaid balance of P60,428,390.42 as a result of the following computation:

COA's concern for a legally fair settlement is not lost on the Court. But the Commission's mandate in this case is to make impartial computations based on the Court's Resolution of 24 February 2004. By injecting its own opinion on what is a legal and fair settlement under the circumstances instead of just computing as directed, the COA has ventured beyond its mandate and submitted a partly opinionated rather than totally impartial computation.

Private respondent correctly pointed out the following as regards the computation on the balance of Industrial Loan C-IX (Schedule C):

"x� x� x� [T]he above-stated overpayments of P56,500,105.04 should have been applied simultaneously to the said third loan, which is shown by COA to have an unpaid balance in the amount of $1,031,063.77, or P56,550,754.59. In applying these overpayments to the third loan, there remains a minimal unpaid balance of only P74,894.73, including interests of 10.5%, as shown below:

����������� vvvvvvvvvvvvv

Having said the foregoing, we nonetheless sustain a part of COA's recomputation. In addition to the balance of the third loan as set forth above, COA has shown that PJI still has the following outstanding obligations:

Private respondent's computation of the said additional obligations is not acceptable. As correctly pointed out by CO A, "[private respondent] simply deducted the accumulated payments on the three (3) obligations from the principal amounts. This is erroneous because the payments were not made on the same dates but were made between August 1, 1986 up to August 1, 1998 x x x . Thus, in between payments, the principal obligations incurred additional interest and penalty charges x x x."

Summing up the Industrial Loan FC Consortium IX balance of P74,894.73 plus the additional obligations balance of P33,289,994.46, PJI's total net outstanding obligation amounts to P33,364,889.19. As pointed out in our 25 November 2003 Resolution, this amount is in accordance with Article 1229 of the Civil Code, which mandates courts to reduce penalties that are "iniquitous and unconscionable." It is worth reiterating that of the original aggregate loan of US$2,627,731.63 -- or P144,123,196.71, if converted using the rate of 54.847 ^[3] cralaw -- PJI has already paid P376,125,916.64, which is more than double the principal loans. The government has already recovered in full the principal amount of the loans and more. What the OSG and the COA now claim is nothing more than unconscionable gains at the expense of the borrower.

More significantly, PJI -- while under petitioner's management -- has continuously been sustaining gargantuan losses ^[4] cralaw from 1997 to 2001. As a result, the company has been operating with a capital deficiency and by all indications is becoming another burden to the government. Thus, the payment by private respondent of this recomputed amount of P33,364,889.19 will not only finally settle this contentious litigation but will also free the State of a looming financial loss and cash burden.

WHEREFORE, private respondent and/or her representatives are DIRECTED to PAY P33,364,889.19 to APT/PMO. Upon full delivery of this amount: 1) the Deed of Chattel Mortgage executed by PJI in favor of DBP, the Deed of Assignment of Voting Shares dated June 17, 1977, and the Supplement to the Deed of Assignment, dated January 16, 1979 are automatically cancelled, and 2) APT/PMO is DIRECTED to immediately turn over management and control of PJI to private respondent and/or her representatives and/or the other stockholders of record of PJI.

The OSG's repetitive arguments (contained in its 28 June 2004 Comment) impugning this Court's 24 February 2004 Resolution and praying for the affirmation of COA's 13 March 2003 computations are treated as a second motion for reconsideration, and thereafter DENIED for being prohibited by the Rules.

This Resolution is immediately executory.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw ��������� Particulars�������������������������������������������������������� Amount

����������������������������������������������������������� ������ US$���������������������� ������� Php

Principal����������������������������������������������� 1,031,063.77���������������� 56,550,754.59

Regular Interest������������������������������������������������ 0.00���������������������������� �� 0.00

Service Fees���������������������������������������������������� 0.00���������������������������� �� 0.00

Additional Interest��������������������������������� �� 493,878.36���� ������������ 27,087,746.41

Penalty Charges����������������������������������������������� 0.00���������������� �� 0.00

Outstanding Obligations������������������������ 1,524,942.13���������������� 83,638,501.00

^[2] cralaw Particulars������������������������������������������������������������������ Amount (PhP)

Principal����������������������������������������������������������������������� �������� 10,526,857.61

Additional Interest��������������������������������������������������������� �������� 20,717,617.20

Penalty Charges����������������������������������������������������������� ���������� 4,007,435.25

Outstanding Obligations������������������������������������������������ �������� 35,251,910.06

^[3] cralaw The rate used by PMO in its Statement of Account on March 13, 2003. If the exchange rate is to be based on the sum paid by DBP when the dollar loans matured, the peso value would be much less. Thus, the government is actually recovering much more than double the principal loans.

^[4] cralaw P58,870,266 in 1997; P50,563,841 in 1998; P170,433,876 in 1999; P149,537,988 in 2000; and P152,549,043 in 2001. There are no financial reports in the records for the years after 2001.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011