View full case

CLARITA DEPAKAKIBO GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

This case involves two consolidated petitions filed by petitioner Clarita D. Garcia. The first petition seeks to nullify and set aside the Sandiganbayan's orders denying her motion to dismiss and/or quash Civil Case No. 0193, a suit for forfeiture filed by the Republic of the Philippines against her and her immediate family. The second petition seeks to nullify and set aside another Sandiganbayan resolution denying her motion to dismiss and/or quash Civil Case No. 0196, another forfeiture case involving the same parties but for different properties.

The Republic, through the Office of the Ombudsman, filed a petition for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired funds and properties that the Garcias had allegedly amassed and acquired. This was followed by the filing of another forfeiture case to recover more funds and properties. Prior to the second forfeiture case, the Ombudsman charged the Garcias with plunder. Both forfeiture cases and the plunder case involved substantially the same properties.

Events transpired after the filing of the first forfeiture case, including the issuance and service of summons, the Garcias' motion to dismiss, the denial of the motion, and the declaration of the Garcias in default. The Garcias also moved for the transfer and consolidation of the forfeiture case with the plunder case but was denied by the Sandiganbayan. They subsequently filed another motion to dismiss and/or quash the first forfeiture case.

The Sandiganbayan merely noted the motion to dismiss and/or quash and refused to resolve it due to the Garcias' prior default. Petitioner Clarita filed the first petition, raising the issue of whether the Sandiganbayan acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to resolve her motion to dismiss and/or quash.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan (SB) has acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and her sons considering that summons against her have been ineffectively served and that there is already a pending plunder case in another division of the SB.

  2. Whether the Fourth Division of the SB has jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases despite the existence of the plunder case.

  3. Whether there is a likelihood of conflicting decisions between the plunder case and the forfeiture cases.

  4. Whether RA 7080 impliedly repealed RA 1379.

  5. Whether the Sandiganbayan acquired jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioner and her children.

  6. Whether or not there was a valid substituted service of summons on the petitioner and her children.

  7. Whether or not the petitioner is estopped from questioning the improper service of summons.

  8. Whether the proceedings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), as it pertains to the petitioner and her three children, lacked jurisdiction over their persons.

RULING:

  1. The petitions are partly meritorious. The SB 4th Division has jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner and her sons.

  2. The SB 4th Division has jurisdiction over the forfeiture cases, and the filing of the plunder case does not deprive it of its jurisdiction.

  3. The variance in the decisions of both divisions does not give rise to a conflict. The decisions in the plunder case and the forfeiture cases do not have a causal connection in the facts sought to be established and the issues sought to be addressed. The decision in one case does not have a bearing on the other. Even if both cases result in an order for forfeiture of the subject properties, the forfeiture following a conviction in the plunder case will apply only to those ill-gotten wealth not recovered by the forfeiture case and vice versa. (No conflict in decisions)

  4. There is no implied repeal of RA 1379 by RA 7080. RA 7080 is a penal statute that penalizes the act of a public officer who amasses ill-gotten wealth. On the other hand, RA 1379 is not penal in nature but aims to enforce the state's right to recover properties not lawfully acquired by an officer. Both laws can be harmonized and enforced without nullifying each other. (No implied repeal)

  5. The Sandiganbayan did not acquire jurisdiction over the persons of the petitioner and her children due to defective substituted service of summons. The summons for the forfeiture cases were served through Maj. Gen. Garcia at the PNP Detention Center, which was found to be irregular and defective. The requirements for valid substituted service of summons were not met. (Lack of jurisdiction)

  6. The Court held that there was no valid substituted service of summons on the petitioner and her children. The service made through Maj. Gen. Garcia did not comply with the requisites for a valid substituted service of summons. The service was not made at petitioner's house or residence but in the PNP Detention Center. Therefore, no valid substituted service of summons was made.

  7. The Court held that the petitioner is not estopped from questioning the improper service of summons, even if she voluntarily appeared in the forfeiture cases. Filing pleadings for special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the court over her person is not deemed a voluntary appearance under the rules. Therefore, the petitioner did not voluntarily submit herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

  8. The proceedings of the RTC, as it pertains to the petitioner and her three children, are declared VOID for lack of jurisdiction over their persons.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The SB has jurisdiction over actions for forfeiture under RA 1379, although the proceeding is civil in nature.

  • A forfeiture case under RA 1379 is a separate cause of action from a plunder case and has a different nature. The former is civil, while the latter is criminal.

  • Double jeopardy only applies to criminal prosecutions and does not bar the filing of a case under RA 1379 even if the accused has been convicted or acquitted of the criminal offense of plunder.

  • The decisions in the plunder case and the forfeiture cases do not give rise to conflicting decisions if the facts sought to be established and the issues sought to be addressed are separate and distinct.

  • All doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal of a law, and efforts should be exerted to harmonize and give effect to all laws and provisions on the same subject.

  • Valid service of summons is necessary for a court to acquire jurisdiction over a person and for the person to be bound by its decision or orders.

  • Valid service of summons is necessary for the court to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant.

  • Substituted service of summons must comply with certain requisites to be considered valid.

  • Voluntary appearance in court is equivalent to service of summons, but filing a motion to dismiss challenging the court's jurisdiction is not deemed a voluntary appearance.

  • Special appearance before the court to challenge its jurisdiction is not equivalent to estoppel or a waiver of the objection to jurisdiction over the person.

  • Lack of valid substituted service of summons deprives the court of jurisdiction over the person, rendering the proceedings null and void.

  • Lack of jurisdiction is a ground for declaring a proceeding void.