View full case

REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION)

FACTS:

Here are the pertinent facts of the case:

On July 22, 1987, the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), filed a complaint (Civil Case No. 0009) against several individuals, including Jose L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, and Imelda R. Marcos, among others, before the Sandiganbayan. The complaint sought reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages, alleging that the defendants had illicitly managed to acquire major shareholdings in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), using these shares eventually for the benefit of Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos. Victor Africa, son of the late Jose L. Africa, was not made a party to Civil Case No. 0009. Over the years, Civil Case No. 0009 led to several incidental cases, one of which was Civil Case No. 0130, where a dispute arose over the control and management of ETPI, leading to the election of two different sets of ETPI board members. Victor Africa, as an ETPI shareholder, contested PCGG’s orders through a petition for certiorari (Civil Case No. 0130) in the Sandiganbayan, asserting improper PCGG control over ETPI’s shareholders' rights and calling for supervised stockholders meetings. The Sandiganbayan sided with Africa and arranged for a new ETPI stockholders meeting while acknowledging the registered shareholders' voting rights, an action challenged by the PCGG through G.R. No. 107789, which resulted in the Supreme Court remanding the matter for further evidence on the sequestered shares’ status. Later, the PCGG obtained approval to hold special stockholders' meetings from the Sandiganbayan. During this period, the deposition of Maurice V. Bane, who served as ETPI's director and treasurer-in-trust, was recorded in London for evidence purposes in favor of the government in the disputes surrounding ETPI. However, a controversy arose over the admissibility of this deposition in Civil Case No. 0009. After the first pre-trial conference in Civil Case No. 0009, ending in 1997, the petitioner (Republic of the Philippines) struggled with admitting the Bane deposition as evidence in the main case due to various procedural objections from the respondents and adverse rulings in subsequent motions to include the deposition. Despite arguing the importance of the deposition for their case, the petitioner faced repeated denials from the Sandiganbayan, escalating the dispute to the Supreme Court for resolution on whether the denial constituted grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the petition was filed within the required period.

  2. Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion

    1. In holding that the 1998 resolution has already attained finality;

    2. In holding that the petitioner’s 3rd motion partakes of a prohibited motion for reconsideration;

    3. In refusing to re-open the case given the critical importance of the Bane deposition to the petitioner’s cause; and

    4. In refusing to admit the Bane deposition notwithstanding the prior consolidation of Civil Case No. 0009 and Civil Case No. 0130.

  3. Whether the Bane deposition is admissible under

    1. Rule 23, Section 4, par. (c) alone or in relation to Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court; and

    2. The principle of judicial notice.

RULING:

  1. The petition was not filed within the required period. The petitioner should have filed the petition when the 2nd motion was ultimately denied.

  2. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in its rulings:

    1. On the finality of the 1998 resolution The Sandiganbayan was legally erroneous but it did not amount to grave abuse of discretion.

    2. On the 3rd motion being considered a forbidden motion for reconsideration The 3rd motion was not prohibited by the rules, but the Sandiganbayan’s erroneous application did not amount to grave abuse.

    3. On refusing to re-open the case The Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion; it should have reopened the case considering the petitioner’s repeated attempts and the crucial importance of the Bane deposition.

    4. On refusing to admit the Bane deposition The Sandiganbayan erred but did not gravely abuse its discretion as the Bane deposition is ultimately inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

  3. On the admissibility of the Bane deposition

    1. Both Rule 23, Section 4(c) and Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court need to be considered together as both implicate rules on evidence and cross-examination.

    2. The principle of judicial notice does not directly apply as the relationship between Civil Case No. 0009 and Civil Case No. 0130 does not fulfill the criteria that would allow for automatic use of evidence from one case to another.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Final vs. Interlocutory Orders A final judgment resolves the case's merits, while an interlocutory order resolves incidental matters and can be revisited by the court before the final judgment.

  2. Prohibited Motions The proscription against second motions for reconsideration is directed at final judgments or orders, not interlocutory orders.

  3. Rule 23 and Rule 130 Depositions must comply both with procedural deposition rules and substantive evidence rules under Section 47, Rule 130 for admissibility.

  4. Due Process in Depositions Parties must have the opportunity for cross-examination according to the same issues and equivalents in both former and present proceedings.

  5. Judicial Notice Courts generally do not take judicial notice of contents of records of other cases unless based on properly established inter-case relationships; consolidation for trial does not merge cases substantively.