FACTS:

Federico B. Moreno, Chairman of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA), was impleaded as a co-defendant in a civil suit for the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth against Lucio C. Tan, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Imelda R. Marcos. The amended complaint alleged that defendants, including Moreno, committed misappropriation and theft of public funds, plunder, extortion, bribery, and other acts of corruption. It specifically accused Moreno of being the Chairman of PVTA when Lucio Tan's Fortune Tobacco, Inc. violated existing laws by importing and purchasing Virginia tobacco in excess of the limit allowed by law. Private respondent Moreno submitted an answer, contending that the importation of Virginia tobacco was allowed under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 655 and that there was no law restricting the purchase of local Virginia tobacco. He argued that his role as Chairman of the PVTA was limited to submitting requests for importation for approval by the President.

Private respondent Moreno filed a motion for discovery under Rule 26, seeking the admission of certain documents that would support his defense. He followed this with a motion for summary judgment when the response to the request for admission contained a major explicit admission. The Second Division of the Sandiganbayan granted private respondent's motion for summary judgment based on the admission made by the Republic regarding the authenticity of President Marcos' handwritten notations.

In a separate case, La Suerte Cigar & Cigarette Factory and Fortune Tobacco Corporation requested import quotas of foreign leaf tobacco for blending purposes. They argued that the import quota was necessary to improve the quality of their cigarettes as they also purchased substantial amounts of local tobacco from farmers. The requests were approved by the President and the PVTA was authorized to issue the corresponding licenses.

The Republic admitted the genuineness of certain exhibits, which contained President Marcos' handwritten approval, in response to private respondent's motion for summary judgment in the second case. Private respondent initially withdrew the motion but changed his mind when the Republic admitted the genuineness and due execution of the documents. Consequently, the resolution dismissed the complaint against defendant Moreno but allowed the case to continue against the other defendants, based on the admission made by the Republic.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is a genuine issue of fact as to the defendant's involvement in the questioned transactions.

2. Whether the admission of the genuineness and due execution of the documents containing President Marcos' handwritten approval affects the defendant's liability in the case.

3. Whether or not the motion for summary judgment should be granted.

4. Whether or not there is a cause of action against defendant Moreno.

5. Whether the allegations in the complaint constitute a flagrant breach of public trust, gross and scandalous abuse of right and power, and violations of the Constitution and laws of the Philippines.

6. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges the duties allegedly breached by the petitioner and the specific rights abused.

7. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges how the petitioner facilitated the withdrawals, disbursements, and questionable use of government funds.

8. Whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that the withdrawals, disbursements, and conversions were subject to audit by the Commission on Audit (COA).

9. Whether the complaint contains factual allegations to support the claim that the petitioner acted as a dummy, nominee, or agent.

10. Whether the allegations in the complaint against the petitioner are deficient and unsupported by factual premises.

11. Whether Paragraph 14(h) of the expanded complaint can serve as a legal basis to inculpate the private respondent.

RULING:

1. The court held that there is no genuine issue of fact as to the defendant's involvement in the questioned transactions. The plaintiff admitted that they have not successfully made out any genuine issue of fact in their complaint, expanded complaint, or answer to the request for admission. The defendant's denial of any specific act of illegality and the plaintiff's failure to directly or indirectly controvert or overthrow this denial led to the conclusion that no genuine triable issue of fact exists.

2. The court ruled that the admission of the genuineness and due execution of the documents containing President Marcos' handwritten approval does not affect the defendant's liability. The defendant's referral of applications for importations to the Office of the President, which acts and approves such applications through President Marcos' handwritten notations, does not support the plaintiff's cause of action based on alleged breach of public trust.

3. The motion for summary judgment should be granted. The summary judgment procedure is intended to give prompt relief to those having a clear-cut claim or defense and to provide a more efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes. The moving party must furnish the court with proof of the highest testimony or verification within their power to eliminate any issues without basis in fact.

4. There is no cause of action against defendant Moreno. The allegations in the pleadings fail to provide the ultimate facts constitutive of the Republic's cause of action. The conclusions of law are unsupported by factual premises and do not provide sufficient basis for holding defendant Moreno liable.

5. No. The allegations in the complaint are mere conclusions of law without factual basis.

6. No. The complaint does not sufficiently allege the duties allegedly breached and the specific rights abused.

7. No. The complaint does not sufficiently allege how the petitioner facilitated the withdrawals, disbursements, and questionable use of government funds.

8. No. The complaint does not contain any factual allegation to show that the withdrawals, disbursements, and conversions were subject to audit by the COA.

9. No. The complaint does not contain any allegation as to how the petitioner became a dummy, nominee, or agent, and it does not specify the corporations in which the petitioner is supposed to be involved.

10. The allegations in the complaint against the petitioner are deficient and unsupported by factual premises. The petitioner's name does not even appear in the listing of defendants, and the allegations merely articulate conclusions of law and presumptions without factual basis.

11. Paragraph 14(h) of the expanded complaint cannot serve as a legal basis to inculpate the private respondent. The language of the documents show that it was President Marcos, not the private respondent, who approved the importations. Furthermore, the private respondent, as the Chairman of the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration, did not have the authority to deny or approve importation without referring the matter to the President.

PRINCIPLES:

• Admission of genuineness and due execution of a document does not necessarily establish liability.

• The absence of a genuine triable issue of fact may warrant the grant of a motion for summary judgment.

• Summary judgment procedure is meant to give prompt relief to those with a clear-cut claim or defense and to provide an efficient procedure for the resolution of disputes.

• The moving party must furnish the court with proof of the highest testimony or verification within their power to eliminate issues without basis in fact.

• Allegations in pleadings must provide ultimate facts constitutive of the cause of action.

• Conclusions of law unsupported by factual premises are insufficient to hold a party liable.

• Allegations in a complaint must be supported by factual allegations, not mere conclusions of law.

• Complaints must sufficiently allege the specific duties breached and the specific rights abused.

• The COA is an independent, constitutional commission that audits, examines, and settles accounts of various government offices or agencies.

• The COA Chairman does not personally audit all disbursements and withdrawals of government funds and transactions involving government property.

• To constitute a violation of public trust, there must be a concrete act that clearly violates the Constitution or law.

• Allegations in a complaint must be supported by factual premises and not merely articulate conclusions of law and presumptions unsupported by factual basis.

• Documents and evidence must be carefully examined to determine the authority and responsibility of the parties involved.

• Admission of statements from the opposing party can have prejudicial repercussions and must be handled with care.

• Summary judgment may be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, along with affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.