ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 167103. January 17, 2006]

MAJOR GENERAL CARLOS F. GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated JAN. 17, 2006

G.R. No. 167103 (Major General Carlos F. Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan and the Republic of the Philippines)

On 7 March 2005, petitioner Major Carlos F. Garcia filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari asking for the nullification of respondent Sandiganbayan's resolutions dated 20 January 2005, denying petitioner's motion to dismiss the civil case for forfeiture against him, and 3 February 2005, likewise denying his motion for reconsideration of the first resolution.

Earlier on 17 November 2004, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165835, seeking to nullify the Sandiganbayan's resolution dated 29 October 2004 granting respondent Republic's application for a writ of preliminary attachment, as well as the writ of preliminary attachment itself, on the ground that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over separate civil actions for forfeiture under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1379.

The petition in this case and the petition in G.R. No. 165835 both stemmed from the petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379 filed by the Office of the Ombudsman before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner herein as respondent on 27 October 2004. The petition for forfeiture contained an application for a writ of preliminary attachment which the Sandiganbayan granted on 29 October 2004. The writ of preliminary attachment was served, together with the summons, on petitioner on 2 November 2004.

Petitioner challenged the writ of preliminary attachment in his petition for certiorari and prohibition in G.R. No. 165835 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Sandiganbayan. On the same date that the petition in G.R. No. 165835 was filed, petitioner filed before the Sandiganbayan a motion to dismiss the petition for forfeiture on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

On 22 June 2005, this Court promulgated its decision in G.R. No. 165835 dismissing the petition therein and in the process upholding the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over the petition for forfeiture of unlawfully acquired properties under R.A. No. 1379. The Court held:

The Sandiganbayan is vested with jurisdiction over violations of R.A. No. 1379, entitled "An Act Declaring Forfeiture In Favor of the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or Employee and Providing For the Proceedings herefor." What acts would constitute a violation of such law? A reading of R.A. No. 1379 establishes that it does not enumerate any prohibited act the commission of which would necessitate the imposition of a penalty. Instead, it provides the procedure for forfeiture to be followed in case a public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his lawful income and income from legitimately acquired property. Section 12 of the law provides a penalty but it is only imposed upon the public officer or employee who transfers or conveys the unlawfully acquired property; it does not penalize the officer or employee for making the unlawful acquisition. In effect, as observed in Almeda , Sr. v. Perez, it imposes the penalty of forfeiture of the properties unlawfully acquired upon the respondent public officer or employee.

It becomes logical, therefore, that violations of R.A. No. 1379 are placed within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, even though the proceeding is civil in nature, since the forfeiture of the illegally acquired property amounts to a penalty. The soundness of this reasoning becomes even more obvious when we consider that the respondent in such forfeiture proceedings is a public officer or employee and the violation of R.A. No. 1379 was committed during the respondent officer or employee's incumbency and in relation to his office. This is in line with the purpose behind the creation of the Sandiganbayan as an anti-graft court-to address the urgent problem of dishonesty in public service. (Citations omitted.)

While G.R. No 165835 was pending before this Court, the action for forfeiture proceeded. On 25 November 2004, the Republic filed a motion seeking to expunge the motion to dismiss, to declare in default respondents therein, including petitioner herein, on the ground that they failed to set the motion to dismiss for hearing within ten (10) days from the date of its filing, and to obtain a judgment by default.

Petitioner promptly filed its opposition to the motion, invoking the filing and pendency of the petition in G.R. No. 165835.

On 20 January 2005, the Sandiganbayan promulgated the questioned resolution denying petitioner's motion to dismiss, declaring petitioner in default, and setting the case for ex parte reception of evidence. On 3 February 2005, the Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration and/or to admit answer. Hence, petitioner has resorted to the present petition, arguing that its motion to dismiss was timely filed and thus tolled the running of the period within which to file an answer. In any case, he contends further, he actually filed the answer within five (5) days from the denial of the motion to dismiss and therefore in time.

The core issue in this case-whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over forfeiture cases under R.A. No. 1379-is the same as in G.R. No. 165835. Since the common core issue was adjudicated with finality in the decision in G.R. No. 165835, as earlier highlighted, the dismissal of the petition in this case should follow as a matter of course.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

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

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE