REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT), petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, BIENVENIDO R. TANTOCO, JR.

and DOMINADOR R. SANTIAGO, respondents. G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991 FACTS: The case was commenced on July 21, 1987 by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines. The complaint which initiated the action was denominated one "for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages," and was avowedly filed pursuant to Executive Order No. 14 of President Corazon C. Aquino. After having been served with summons, Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, instead of filing their answer, jointly filed a "Motion to Strike Out Some Portions of the Complaint and For Bill of Particulars of Other Portions." The PCGG filed an opposition thereto, and the movants, a reply to the opposition. Tantoco and Santiago then presented a "motion for leave to file interrogatories under Rule 25 of the Rules of Court" of which the PCGG responded by filing a motion. On March 18, 1988, in compliance with the Order of January 29, 1988, the PCGG filed an Expanded Complaint of which the Sandiganbayan denied with a Resolution. Tantoco and Santiago then filed an Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim. On July 27, 1989 Tantoco and Santiago filed with the Sandiganbayan a pleading denominated "Interrogatories to Plaintiff," and on August 2, 1989, an "Amended Interrogatories to Plaintiff"' as well as a Motion for Production and Inspection of Documents. The Sandiganbayan admitted the Amended Interrogatories and granted the motion for production and inspection of documents respectively. PCGG filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of August 25, 1989, it also filed an opposition to the Amended Interrogatories. Tantoco and Santiago filed a reply and opposition. After hearing, the Sandiganbayan promulgated two (2) Resolutions. Hence, this present petition. ISSUES: 1. WON PETITIONER CAN OBJECT TO THE INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 25 OF THE RULES OF COURT. 2. WON SANDIGANBAYAN ERRED IN ORDERING FOR THE PRODUCTION AND INSPECTION OF SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS AND THINGS ALLEGEDLY IN THE POSSESSION OF PCGG. HELD: 1. No. The State is, of course, immune from suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued without its consent. But it is axiomatic that in filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds its immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary litigant. The PCGG cannot claim a superior or preferred status to the State, even while assuming to represent or act for the State. 2. No. The Court gives short shrift to the argument that some documents sought to be produced and inspected had already been presented in Court and marked preliminarily as PCGG's exhibits, the movants having in fact viewed, scrutinized and even offered objections thereto and made comments thereon. Obviously, there is nothing secret or confidential about these documents. No serious objection can

therefore be presented to the desire of the private respondents to have copies of those documents in order to study them some more or otherwise use them during the trial for any purpose allowed by law.