ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. Nos. 149802, 150320, 150367, 153207, & 153459. August 8, 2006]

ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION v. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.; ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION v. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.; REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN; ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.; REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 8, 2006

G.R. Nos. 149802, 150320, 150367, 153207, & 153459 (Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, et al.; Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, et al.; Republic v. Sandiganbayan; Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation v. Republic of the Philippines, et al.; Republic of the Philippines v. Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

For this Court's consideration are the following: (1) Motion for Reconsideration dated February 6, 2006 filed by private respondents Prime Holdings, Inc. (PHI), the Estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco, and Imelda O. Cojuangco (Cojuangcos) and their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration dated March 9, 2006, (2) Motion to Set Oral Argument dated February 7, 2006, Reiterative Motion to Set Case for Oral Argument dated July 25, 2006, Motion to Hear Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on Oral Argument dated July 27, 2006, and Supplemental Motion to Set Case for Oral Argument dated August 1, 2006, also filed by private respondents PHI and Conjuangcos, and (3) Motion for Reconsideration dated January 20, 2006 filed by Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation, petitioners in G.R. Nos. 149802, 150320, and 153207, and their Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration dated February 22, 2006 and Second Supplement to Motion for Reconsideration dated March 24, 2006.

The motions for reconsideration assail this Court's Decision of January 20, 2006.

Private respondents PHI and Cojuangcos again lay emphasis on the Deeds of Assignment in the names of members of the Cojuangco family. This Court, however, did carefully consider those deeds and found that they do not address the issue of who was in control of PHI prior to their execution, the significance of which issue was already discussed in this Court's Decision under reconsideration.

Private respondents go on to posit that the Court "is bound - in fairness and the requirements of due process - to give [them] the opportunity to explain and to convince the court by other evidence that it gravely erred in its conclusions." Private respondents' position does not lie. If they had evidence other than the Deeds of Assignment tending to support private respondents' position, the same should have been presented in the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan.

Further, private respondents argue that the appreciation by the Sandiganbayan of the evidence could not have been gross, arbitrary or despotic since four against seven members of this Court voted to affirm the Sandiganbayan's Partial Decision. Suffice it to state that Article VIII, Section 4 of the Constitution only requires that the decisions of this Court be supported by "the majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon." The Court's Decision in the instant case has clearly satisfied this requirement.

As for the other points raised by private respondents in their Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration which merely reiterate their allegations in their pleadings, they were already considered by this Court in arriving at its Decision.

The same private respondents' motions to set this case for oral argument must likewise fail. The parties, including PHI and the Cojuangcos, have already extensively argued their positions on the material issues through their pleadings and motions.

Petitioners Yuchengco and Y Realty Corp. (petitioners), on the other hand, seek a reconsideration of this Court's ruling with respect to the three petitions which they filed, G.R. No. 149802 which was dismissed by this Court for being filed out of time and for mootness, and G.R. Nos. 150320 and 153207 which were denied on the merits.

Whether there is ground for this Court to reconsider its rulings in G.R. Nos. 149802 and 153207 largely depends on whether G.R. 150320 was properly denied.

The issue in G.R. 150320, it may be recalled, is whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it declared petitioners to have waived the presentation of evidence for failure to avail of the trial dates agreed upon by the parties. If there was no grave abuse of discretion, then the ruling of the Sandiganbayan stands. As such, there would be no need to consider the issue of whether the Sadiganbayan should have granted their Urgent Motion to Suspend Trial Pending Discovery and their verbal motion to change the order of trial, which motions were the subject of G.R. 149802.

On the same premise, the Sandiganbayan would not be faulted in relying merely on the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions on record when it ruled that there are no genuine issues to be tried, which ruling was the subject of G.R. No. 153207.

Petitioners proffer reasons behind their failure to avail of the trial dates given them.

Petitioners claim that they "had no reason to believe or assume that Mercado-Ferrer and De Guzman would disobey a lawful process of respondent court, since they had obeyed the earlier subpoenas to appear at their depositions." In their Motion for Reconsideration, however, petitioners repeatedly insist that the two were hostile witnesses. In light thereof, they could thus have anticipated their absence and insured the attendance of other witnesses, whose cooperation they could have been more certain about, to testify in their stead.

Significantly, by petitioners' claim, petitioner Yuchengco intended to testify. Why he did not, there appears to be no valid reason.

While petitioners aver that they first wanted to prove that respondents PHI/Cojuangcos were mere dummies of the Marcoses before putting Yuchengco on the witness stand, such proof was not a necessary condition for him to ably testify on his claim on the disputed shares.

In fine, this Court appreciates no ground or reason to justify a disturbance of its finding that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it deemed petitioners to have waived the presentation of evidence.

No further discussion is then needed with respect to G.R. No. 149802.

Also in light of petitioners having been deemed to have waived presenting evidence, the only facts before respondent court at the time of the filing of the motion for summary judgment subject of G.R. 153207 were those reflected in the pleadings and the depositions on file. The Court here reiterates that no reversible error attended the Sandiganbayan's calibration of the pleadings and depositions and its conclusion on the basis thereof that "there is no triable issue of fact in the action." ^[1] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Oral Argument filed by private respondents Prime Holdings, Inc., the Estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco, and Imelda O. Cojuangco and the Motion for Reconsideration filed by Alfonso T. Yuchengco and Y Realty Corporation are DENIED with FINALITY.

Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, and Callejo, J.J., voted in favor of the foregoing Resolution denying the motions with finality. Velasco, Jr., J., concurred.

Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Chico-Nazario and Garcia, JJ. voted to maintain their dissent and vote for the grant of the motions.

Carpio, Azcuna, and Tinga, JJ., no part.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Partial Decision dated May 6, 2002, Republic v. Estate of Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al., Civil Case No. 0002, p. 68.

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