ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ G.R. No. 109604. October 23, 2000]
PCGG vs. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, et al.
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 23 2000.
G.R. No. 109604 (Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and Victor Africa.) and G.R. No. 110229 (Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), vs. The Honorable Sandiganbayan (Third Division), Universal Molasses Corp., Aerocom Investors & Managers, Inc., Lourdes Africa, ITF Nathalie Africa, Jose Enrique and Paul Delfin, Rosario Arellano, Raquel Dinglasan, Victoria Legarda, Angela Lobregat, Benito Nieto, Carlos Nieto, Manuel Nieto III, Ramon Nieto, Polygon Investors & Managers, Inc., ma. Rita De los Reyes, Evelyn Romero, Rosario Songco, Carmen Tuazon, and Rafael Valdez.)
The Republic of the Philippines through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) appeals via certiorari from two (2) resolutions of the Sandiganbayan denying its motions for consolidation of Civil Cases Nos. 0051 and 009, 1 In G. R. No. 109604, petition for Review filed on May 4, 1993, Rollo, pp. 5-40. and of Civil cases Nos. 0126, 0127 and 0135.
The present petitions arose from the complaint filed with the Sandiganbayan by the Republic of the Philippines, through the PCGG, on July 22, 1987, for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages against Jose L. Africa+, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos+, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Roberto S. Benedicto+, Juan Ponce Enrile and Potenciano Ilusorio. 2 Docketed as Civil Case No. 0009; G. R. No. 109604, Rollo, pp. 50-79.
Subsequently on various dates, defendants Roberto S. Benedicto+, Jose L. Africa+, and Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., together with private respondents, by themselves or through their associates, filed a barrage of cases against PCGG, which involved identical subject matters. Pertinent to the present petitions are the following, to wit:
(a) Africa vs. Desuasido, et al., Civil Case No. 0051- A Petition praying that respondents including the corporate secretary elected/appointed by the "PCGG Board" be directed to produce and present certain documents involving ETPI. 3 Petition for Review, Annex "D", G.R. No. 109604, Rollo, pp.80-90.
(b) Oceanic Wireless Network, Inc. (OWNI) vs. Africa, Civil Case No. 126- An Action praying that defendants and all persons acting for them be enjoined from interfering with the work, functions and business transactions of OWNI's present Board and Management, and that defendants and their agents be restrained from representing themselves as supposed OWNI directors or officers, or from acting as such. 4 Petition for Review, Annex "E", G. R. No. 110229, Rollo, pp. 124-133.
(c) Africa vs. PCGG, Civil Case No. 0127- A Petition praying that PCGG be enjoined from further acting on the basis of its writs of sequestration such as running, operating, administering and managing the affairs and business of (OWNI), a sister company of ETPI. 5 Petition for Review, Annex "E-1", G. R. No. 110299, Rollo, pp. 154-187.
(d) Universal Molasses Corp., et al. vs. PCGG, et. al., Civil Case No. 0135- A petition praying that PCGG be restrained from managing the affairs of ETPI and that all its acts regarding ETPI be declared void. Universal Molasses Corp. is a holding company and/or shell/dummy corporation of Roberto S. Benedicto. 6 Petition for Review, Annex "E-2", G. R. No. 110299, Rollo, pp. 223-239.
On March 30, 1989, the Sandiganbayan declared that the issues raised in Civil Case No. 0050 are similar to those in Civil Case No. 0051. Both suits seek to have certain documents and records of ETPI, of which petitioners are stockholders, be made available to them after their request to be furnished with these documents were refused. 7 Petition for Review, Annex"E", G. R. No. 109604, Rollo, pp. 99-101.
On June 25, 1992, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for consolidation of Civil Case Nos. 0051 with Civil Case No. 0009, 8 Petition for Review, Annex "F", G. R. No. 109604, Rollo, pp. 102-116. which the Sandiganbayan denied in a resolution promulgated on April 1, 1993, the dispositive portion of which provides:
"Wherefore, the Motion to Strike Out Counterclaims, dated August 14, 1992, filed by petitioner Victor Africa is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
"Likewise, the motion for Consolidation dated June 22, 1992 filed by the Republic of the Philippines through the PCGG insofar as it prays for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0051 with Civil Case No. 0009 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." 9 Resolution penned by then Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Sabino R. De Leon, Jr, with Associate Justices Regino Hermosisima, Jr. and Cipriano A. Del Rosario, concurring; Petition for Review, Annex "A", G. R. No. 109604, Rollo, pp. 42-48, at p. 47.
On June 23, 1992, the PCGG filed with the Sandiganbayan another motion for consolidation of Civil Case Nos. 0126, 0127 and 0135 with Civil Case No. 0009, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion in a resolution promulgated on April 15, 1993, the dispositive portion of which provides:
"WHEREFORE, the Motion for Consolidation dated June 22, 1993 insofar as it prays for the consolidation of Civil Case No. 0126, 0127 and 135 with Civil Case No. 0009, is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED." 10 Resolution penned by Sandiganbayab Associate Justice Sabino R. de Leon, Jr. with Associate Justices Regino Hermisisima, Jr. and Cipriano A. del Rosario, concurring; Petition for Review, Annex "A", G.R. No. 110229, Rollo, pp. 67-78.
Hence, these petitions.
On May 12, 1993, we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Sandiganbayan from enforcing its questioned resolution promulgated on April 1, 1993 issued in Civil Case No. 0051 insofar as it denied petitioner's subject motion for comsolidation, as well as from further proceeding with the aforesaid civil case. 11 In G. R. No. 109604, Rollo, p. 462.
At issue is the propriety of the Sandiganbayan's denial of the consolidation of the subject civil cases.
Rule 31, Section 1, 1964 Revised Rules of Court provides:
"Section 1. Consolidation. - When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay."
As a rule, the consolidation of several cases involving the same parties and subject matter is discretionary with the trial court. 12 Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, 1997 edition, p. 348. It is clear from the provision afore-cited that the granting of a motion for consolidation is not a matter of right, as indicated by the use of the word "may." The determination of whether the cases pending before the court may be consolidated rests on the sound discretion of the trial court. 13 People vs. Mejia, 275 SCRA 127, 151, [1997], citing Raymundo v. Elipe, 42 SCRA 615, 629 [1971].
It may be noted, in the first place, that the instant petition is a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court. An extraordinary remedy, its use is available only and restrictively in truly exceptional cases wherein the action of an inferior court, tribunal, board or officer performing judicial or quasi-judicial function is challenged for being wholly void on grounds of jurisdiction. The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 14 Ibid , at. p. 611.
There is merit in the petitions. The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion when it denied the motions for consolidation.
Contrary to the findings of the Sandiganbayan, it is evident that the Civil Cases Nos. 0051, 0126, 0127 and 0135 are but mere incidents to the principal case, which is Civil Case No. 0009. The subject matter of Civil Case No. 0009 covers among others, the Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), Oceanic Wireless Network Inc. (OWNI), Domestic Satellite Philippines, Inc. (DOMSAT), Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), and Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC). The issues raised in these cases can be better threshed out if consolidated with Civil Case NO. 0009.
Hence, to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court, of which the Sandiganbayan is one, and save unnecessary cost or expense, the civil cases may be consolidated with the principal case. In this manner, justice will be attained with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants. 15 People v. Mejia, supra, Note 13. Section 2, Rule XV of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan allows consolidation in only one Division of cases arising from the same incident or series of incidents, or involving common questions of law and fact. 16 People v. Sandiganbayan, 275 SCRA 505, 522 [1997]. All of the civil cases subject of the instant petitions are pending with the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
The civil cases covered by the present petitions have dragged on for several years because of the barrage of cases that have been filed by the parties involved in these cases against one another. Because of such delaying tactics, the government's quest for ill-gotten wealth has been affected. To put an end to this long delay, there is a need to lift the temporary restraining order of the Court dated May 12, 1993, and have the proceedings in the subject civil cases proceed with deliberate dispatch, in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act applicable to the Sandiganbayan as a trial court.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby GRANTS the petitions for certiorari and ANNULS the resolution of the Sandiganbayan promulgated on April 1, 1993 and April 15, 1993, in Civil Cases Nos. 0051, and 0009, 0126, 0127 and 0135. The temporary restraining order issued in G. R. No. 109604 dated May 12, 1993 is hereby dissolved.
The Court orders the Sandiganbayan to forthwith consolidate Civil Cases Nos. 0051, and 0126, 0127, and 0135 with Civil Case No. 0009 and decide the cases, which have been pending for almost thirteen (13) years from the filing of the original complaints, within the prescribed time in the Speedy Trial Act, not exceeding six (6) months from notice. The Sandiganbayan shall report to this Court on the progress of the cases on month to month basis.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
