ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 141341. February 9, 2000]
PEA-PTGWO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 9 2000.
G.R. No. 141341 (Pantranco Employees Association [PEA-PTGWO] vs. Sandiganbayan, et al.)
Pantranco Employees Association
(PEA-PTGWO) won a judgment for P142,191,443.83 representing unpaid
commissions of drivers and conductors and P8,000,000.00 in attorney's
fees in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) against Pantranco North
Express, Inc. (Pantranco). To satisfy the judgment, Trust Account Nos. T-8461-I
and T-8461-II in the Philippine National Bank (PNB) were sought to be
garnished. The funds came from the original P55 million paid by the
North Express Transport, Inc. (NETI) for the purchase of Pantranco, which
because of operational losses, had been taken over by PNB and its investment
subsidiary, National Investment Development Corporation (NIDC), to which
Pantranco was heavily indebted. PNB, however, refused to release the funds of
said accounts because of Resolution No. 93-97, dated December 22, 1993, of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) enjoining PNB from allowing
withdrawals therefrom.
The funds in Trust Account Nos. 8461-I and 8461-II allegedly form part of the ill-gotten wealth sought to be recovered by the government in Civil Case No. 0002, entitled "Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al." and Criminal Case No. 11960, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Gregorio Aranet III," pending before the Sandiganbayan. (Araneta III allegedly owns NETI, the erstwhile buyer of Pantranco.)
On June 27, 1995, petitioner sought the release of the trust funds deposit on the ground that "the freeze order over these funds were already lifted by virtue of the Decision of the Court of Appeals in the Fordson case (CA-G.R. SP No. 34671)." This was disputed by the government which, in its opposition, claimed that it had a pending motion for reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 34671.
On April 17, 1998, petitioner
again sought the immediate release of the deposit of P60 million in the
PNB on the ground that, as a money judgment in a labor case, the decision in
its favor was preferred not only over the government's claim but also over
those of other creditors. Petitioner's motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan
for lack of merit and for lack of the required notice of hearing.
On March 17, 1999, petitioner filed a "Motion to Deliver and for Release of Funds Due to Recent Admissions and Developments." In a resolution, dated November 18, 1999, the Sandiganbayan also denied petitioner's aforesaid motion.
Hence, this petition assailing the resolution of November 18, 1999. Petitioner argues that the funds in question belong to Pantranco and that, even assuming that they belong to PNB, the latter, as owner of Pantranco, would nonetheless be bound to release the money to petitioner as labor claims under R.A. No. 6715 enjoy preference over all other claims.
The contention is without merit.
The motion of petitioner which was denied in the assailed resolution is just a rehash of its previous motions which had already been denied by the Sandiganbayan. As the Sandiganbayan noted in its resolution:
. . .The records bear out that as early as August 17, 1994, this Court already resolved the issue of whether or not the subject funds should be released to herein movant when it ruled that:
"xxx the release of PNEI funds deposited with the PNB under
Account Nos. T-8461-I and T-8461-II could be resolved only after the parties
have submitted their respective pleading in intervention, presented their
evidence on factual issues, and submitted the incident after hearing for
resolution on the merits. Since movant's ultimate objective is the disposition
of the P60 million, more or less, to satisfy a judgment debt in its
favor, the question of ownership of said amount would of necessity have to be
threshed out first, and this is precisely one of the principal issues in the
main case.
This deposit is claimed by plaintiff Republic allegedly as being part
of the ill-gotten wealth amassed by the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
members of his immediate family and the so-called Marcos cronies. The Pantranco
North Express Inc. (PNEI) disputes the enforceability of PEA-PTGWO's claim to
preference of credit, as does the plaintiff Republic. IMEXCO, Inc. yet still
another claimant, has also filed another motion to intervene claiming that P25,000,000
of the deposit belongs to it as part of the P55 Million down payment it
had raised for PNEI.
Much as this court wishes to resolved this issue as expeditiously as possible, at least in so far as the deposit is concerned, it cannot do so without evidence having been presented and offered to substantiate the factual allegations of the parties. It would be premature at this time to even attempt to resolve this crucial issue."
Considering that the case is still being tried and the question of whether the deposit forms part of the ill-gotten wealth of herein defendants is yet to be resolved, We hold that the relief sought is still premature at this point in time.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of showing that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of its discretion.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
