ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. Nos. 147062-64.July 2, 2002]
REP. OF THE PHILS. vs. COCOFED, et al.
EN BANC
Gentleman:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 JUL 2002.
G.R. Nos. 147062-64(Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) vs. COCOFED et al. and Ballares et al., Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr. and Sandiganbayan (First Division).)
The Court Resolved ToNOTE the Compliance [1] cralaw of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan dated May 23, 2002 and signed by its Acting Chairman, Justice Gregory S. Ong.Said Compliance was submitted in connection with this Court's Order [2] cralaw to decide with finality the controversy on the merits within (6) months from notice.The Court also NOTES petitioner's Motion to Admit the Attached Manifestation and Motion [3] cralaw with the said Manifestation and Motion (Re: Sandiganbayan, First Division's Compliance Dated May 23, 2002). [4] cralaw
The Sandiganbayan First Division, Through its Acting Chairman, asserts
that its continued inability to finally resolve the said case is caused by
"unresolved motions or incidents."
[5]
cralaw
It then claims that the authority and duty to resolve these pending incidents
rest on its regular chairman, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, who,
to date, has yet to act on said motions.
[6]
cralaw
Thus, it is constrained to await action by Justice Garchitorena before
conducting further proceedings on the merits.
[7]
cralaw
In Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, [8] cralaw this Court specifically addressed the issue of backlog of cases in the Sandiganbayan.In that case, we noted that some cases pending before the anti-graft court remain undecided for years despite being submitted for resolution.Accordingly, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena was relieved not only of his powers, functions and duties as the presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan but also from presiding over the trial of cases. [9] cralaw In fact, he was even directed to devote himself exclusively to decision writing until the cases assigned to him as well as those without a ponente are finally decided. [10] cralaw
Having been relieved of such duties and functions, it becomes inevitable that J. Garchitorena can no longer decide on the pending motions in incidents in Civil Case 0033-A, 0033-B and 0033-F without jeopardizing the speedy disposition of the cases. The directive is clear.He shall devote himself exclusively to decision writing.
To await any action from J. Garchitorena will again unnecessarily delay the proceedings of the cases at hand which goes against the very Order decreed by this Court. [11] cralaw
Furthermore, the Rules of Procedure promulgated by the Sandiganbayan itself do not Support the reason stated in the Compliance. Under Section 3, Rule XV of said Rules:
"Section 3. Assignment of Cases Permanent - Cases assigned to a division of the Sandiganbayan in accordance with these Rules shall remain with said division notwithstanding changes in the composition thereof and all matters raised therein shall be deemed to be submitted for consideration and adjudication by any and all of the Justices who are members of the division aforesaid at the time said matters are taken up, irrespective of whether they were or were not members of the division at the time the case was first assigned thereto; x x x." [12] cralaw (Italics supplied)
We therefore find no impediment, whether legal or practical, for the present composition of the First Division of the Sandiganbayan to resolve the pending motions, including the Solicitor General's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.Immediate action buy the current members is therefore imperative.
Indeed, it is about time to finally settle this controversy involving the coconut levy funds for it has been straddling our courts for the last 15 years.
WHEREFORE, the Sandiganbayan First Division, under its current composition and membership, is DIRECTED to resolve with all deliberate speed and not later than six (6) months from notice, the Civil Cases relevant to the herein controversy, including all matters, incidents and motions appertaining thereto, without need of awaiting its regular chairman.
Acting on the withdrawal of appearancedated 7 June 2002 of Sycip Salazar Hernandez and Gatmaitan, withdrawing their appearance as counsel for respondents United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), the Court Resolved to direct said counsel to FULLY COMPLY with Sec.26, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
The Compliance dated 23 May 2002 of Justice Gregory Ong, Acting Chairman, First Division, Sandiganbayan, is NOTED.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2023-2027.
[2] cralaw See dispositive portion of Republic v. COCOFED, et al., GR Nos. 147062-64, December 14, 2001.
[3] cralaw Rollo, Vol. III, pp. 2108-2111.
[4] cralaw Ibid., pp. 2112-2118.
[5] cralaw Compliance, p. 2; rollo, p. 2024.
[6] cralaw Ibid., p. 3; ibid., p. 2025.
[7] cralaw Id.
[8] cralaw A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001.
[9] cralaw Ibid., p. 41.
[10] cralaw Id.
[11] cralaw Republic v. COCOFED, et al., GR Nos.147062-64, December 14, 2001.
[12] cralaw Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan; Note that under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7975 dated March 30, 1995, "[t]he Sandiganbayan shall have no power to promulgate its own rules of procedure, except to adopt internal rules governing the allotment ofcases among the divisions, the rotation of justice among them, and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court."
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
