ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 136506. July 7, 2004]

RP vs. DESIERTO

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 7 2004.

G.R. No. 136506 (Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Aniano Desierto, et al.)

Before us are the two (2) Manifestations [1] cralaw filed by respondents Jose C. Conception and Maria Clara L. Lobregat, [2] cralaw respectively, seeking to set aside the Decision [3] cralaw of the Court promulgated on August 23, 2001 and a motion [4] cralaw filed by respondent Eduardo Cojuangco for the reconsideration of the said decision.

The antecedents are as follows:

Several complaints for misuse of the coconut levy funds were filed against respondent Eduardo Cojuangco and several others by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with the Department of Justice (DOJ). [5] cralaw The complaints were investigated by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Special Panel of Prosecutors. During the submission of the parties' respective pleadings, the law firm of Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz (ACCRA) entered its appearance as counsel of Jose C. Concepcion. [6] cralaw In subsequent pleadings, ACCRA also appeared as counsel of respondent Maria Clara Lobregat. [7] cralaw Thereafter, respondent Cojuangco, through counsel, Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza, moved to defer the proceedings on the ground that the PCGG was disqualified to conduct the preliminary investigation of the case. [8] cralaw This Court resolved in Cojuangco v. Presidential Commission on Good Government [9] cralaw that the preliminary investigation should be conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman, thus, this Court ordered that the complaints and records of the cases under I.S. Nos. 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83 and 84 be transmitted to the said office. [10] cralaw I.S. No. 79 was docketed as OMB-0-90-2808.

On December 29, 1997, the Office of the Ombudsman, through Graft Investigation Officer (GIO) Manuel J. Tablada, issued an Order recommending that the motion of Atty. Mendoza be granted, and the case docketed as OMB-0-90-2808 be dismissed. [11] cralaw In the caption of the case, eight (8) of the nine (9) respondents, namely, Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., Ma. Clara Lobregat, Rolando dela Cuesta, Jose Eleasar, Jose C. Concepcion, Danilo Ursua, Narciso Pineda, and Augusto Orosa, were captioned "c/o Estelito P. Mendoza;" ^[12] cralaw hence, copies of said Order were transmitted to the said eight (8) respondents, through Atty. Mendoza. [13] cralaw

The Order of Tablada was reviewed by GIO Emora C. Pagunuran who recommended the approval thereof by the Ombudsman; the latter approved the recommendation and dismissed the complaint.

The OSG filed its motion for the reconsideration of the Order but the Office of the Ombudsman denied the same. [14] cralaw Copies of said order were transmitted to the eight (8) respondents, including Concepcion and Lobregat, through Atty. Estelito Mendoza. [15] cralaw

On December 28, 1998, the OSG filed its petition [16] cralaw under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court for the reversal of the said Order of the Office of the Ombudsman. In its petition, the OSG stated that the eight (8) respondents, Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr., Ma. Clara Lobregat, Rolando dela Cuesta, Jose Eleasar, Jose C. Concepcion, Danilo Ursua, Narciso Pineda, and Augusto Orosa, may be served processes through Atty. Estelito Mendoza. [17] cralaw Thus, copies of the petition were served on the eight (8) respondents through Atty. Mendoza. However, it turned out that respondents Lobregat and Concepcion failed to receive their respective copies of the petition and all other subsequent pleadings and Court resolutions.Consequently, said respondents failed to file their Comment on the petition.

On August 23, 2001, the Court promulgated its Decision, granting the petition and reversing and setting aside the assailed Order of the Office of the Ombudsman in OMB-0-90-2808. The dispositive portion of the Court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Review and Recommendation dated August 6, 1998 of Graft Investigation Officer Emora C. Pagunuran. and approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, dismissing the petitioner's complaint in OMB-0-90-2808, and the Order dated September 25, 1998 denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

The Ombudsman is hereby directed to proceed with the preliminary investigation of the case OMB-0-90-2808.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED. [18] cralaw

On September 21, 2001, respondent Concepcion filed his Manifestation, [19] cralaw through ACCRA, his counsel of record, alleging inter alia, that he only learned through the newspapers that this Court had rendered judgment ordering the Office of the Ombudsman to continue its investigation of the charge against him and the other alleged cronies which included respondent Concepcion and that when he verified the news from this Court, it was only then that he knew of the petition in the Court and its decision. He avers that he was not accorded the right to file his Comment on the petition; hence, he was denied his right to due process. He asserts that the decision of the Court is null and void as to him.

On the same day, September 21, 2001, respondent Cojuangco filed his Motion for Reconsideration of the above decision. [20] cralaw

On September 24, 2001, respondent Lobregat, through her counsel, filed her Manifestation [21] cralaw basically alleging the same allegations as respondent Concepcion: that she was not aware of the present petition; that she was never represented by Atty. Estelito Mendoza; that the OSG knew that she had been represented by ACCRA in all other related cases filed against her, thus, she alleges, the OSG misled this Court when it averred that she may be served with the processes through Atty. Estelito Mendoza. She asserts that the Order of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint against her had become final and executory.

In its Comment [22] cralaw on the Manifestations of respondents Concepcion and Lobregat, the OSG admitted that copies of its petition or its subsequent pleadings on respondents Lobregat and Concepcion were only served through Atty. Estelito Mendoza and not through their counsel, the ACCRA Law Office because it relied solely on what was stated in the order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman directing that the respondent be sent copies of said Order through Atty. Estelito Mendoza, and that it committed an honest mistake; and offered its apologies to the Court and to the two (2) respondents, thus:

The above data appearing on the petition is more a product of an honest lapse than an attempt to misrepresent.

Petitioner respectfully invites the attention of the Honorable Court to Annex B of its petition (which is the questioned Order dated September 25, 1998 of the Ombudsman denying the petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of its Memorandum dated August 6, 1998 dismissing petitioner's complaint in OMB-0-90-2808).

As can be gleaned from page 4 of the said order, several respondents were grouped together c/o Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza. Obviously, the same was copied and used in indicating the place where the same respondents may be served which, admittedly, is not correct.

Petitioner begs the indulgence of the Honorable Court for such honest mistake and offers its apologies to private respondents Lobregat and Concepcion. [23] cralaw

After a careful examination of the records, we note that the OSG as representative of petitioner Republic of the Philippines, had been informed from the very beginning of the controversy that respondents Lobregat and Concepcion were represented by their counsel, the ACCRA Law Office and yet served copies of its petition in this Court on the respondents, through Atty. Estelito Mendoza.

Irrefragably then, the respondents Concepcion and Lobregat were deprived of their right to file their comments on the petition before this Court rendered its decision. The case was not yet ripe for decision when this Court rendered its decision on its erroneous belief that the counsel of the respondents Concepcion and Lobregat was Atty. Estelito Mendoza as shown by the petition of the OSG.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court dated August 23, 2001 is SET ASIDE. The petitioner is DIRECTED to serve copies of the petition on the respondents who are directed to file their respective Comments on the petition within ten (10) days from said service. The motion for reconsideration of respondent Eduardo Cojuangco is MOOTED by the resolution of this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 302 and 380, respectively.

^[2] cralaw Died on January 2, 2004 and is now substituted by her children. Rollo, pp. 775-777.

^[3] cralaw Rollo , p. 284; Penned by Associate Justice Sabino R. De Leon, Jr., with Associate Justices Josue N. Bellosillo (Chairman), Vicente V. Mendoza, Leonardo A. Quisumbing and Arturo BBuena concurring.

[4] cralaw Id. at 307.

^[5] cralaw Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government , 190 SCRA 226(1990).

^[6] cralaw Records, p. 0187 (Folder 1).

^[7] cralaw Id . at 0257.

^[8] cralaw Id . at 0262.

^[9] cralaw Supra .

^[10] cralaw Ibid .

^[11] cralaw Records, pp. 0330-0333 (Folder 1).

^[12] cralaw Id . at 0330.

^[13] cralaw Id . at 0333.

^[14] cralaw Rollo , p. 42.

^[15] cralaw Records, p. 0369 (Folder 1).

^[16] cralaw Rollo , p. 2.

^[17] cralaw Id . at 3-4.

^[18] cralaw Id . at 300.

^[19] cralaw Id . at 302.

^[20] cralaw Id . at 307.

^[21] cralaw Id . at 380.

^[22] cralaw Id . at 415.

^[23] cralaw Id . at 430.

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