REPUBLIC VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN 406 SCRA 190 CORONA; July 15, 2003

NATURE Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 FACTS - Republic, through PCGG represented by OSG, filed PETITION FOR FORFEITURE before Sandiganbayan. It sought to declare US$356 million deposited in escrow in PNB, as ill-gotten wealth. The funds were previously held by 5 account groups in Swiss banks. - Also, it sought forfeiture of US$25 million and US$5 million in treasury notes, frozen at Central Bank by PCGG. - Imelda, Imee, Irene, Bongbong Marcos filed their ANSWER. - Before pre-trial, GENERAL AGREEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS were executed by Marcos children and PCGG Chair. This agreement specified that Republic obtained judgment from Swiss Federal Tribunal that the US$356 M belongs to the Republic. - Marcos children filed MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS. Hearings were conducted. - Republic filed MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS. Imelda filed OPPOSITION. Sandiganbayan denied the motion because the motion to approve agreements took precedence over motion for summary judgment. - Imelda filed MANIFESTATION that she wasnt a party to the motion for approval of the agreement. - Republic filed with District Attorney in Zurich an ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF DEPOSITS to an escrow account in PNB. This was granted. This ruling was upheld by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Marcos children MOVED THAT THE FUNDS BE PLACED IN CUSTODIA LEGIS. Sandiganbayan granted motion. - Case was set for trial. Republic filed another MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Imelda filed OPPOSITION. - Hearing on the motion for summary judgment was conducted. Sandiganbayan granted Republics motion. - The Marcoses opposed. Sandiganbayan reversed itself. Hence this petition. ISSUE/S 1. WON Sandiganbayan rightly reversed itself because of lack of authenticated translations of the decisions of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (considering that the Marcoses themselves never raised this issue and the decisions were used by Sandiganbayan itself) 2. WON certiorari is proper 3. WON summary judgment is proper 4. WON forfeiture is proper HELD 1. NO. - Sandiganbayans decision was not dependent on the determination of the Swiss courts. Neither is the Supreme Courts. 2. YES. Ratio - Normally, Sandiganbayan decisions are brought

before SC under Rule 45, not Rule 65. But where the case is undeniably ingrained with immense public interest, public policy and deep historical repercussions, certiorari is allowed notwithstanding existence and availability of remedy of appeal. Reasoning - Imelda contends that Republic has plain, speedy and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law. Irene said that the official authenticated English version of the Swiss court decisions should be presented 3. YES. Ratio - Although an answer may on its face appear to tender issues requiring trial, if it is demonstrated by affidavits, depositions or admissions that those issues are not genuine but sham or fictitious, Court is justified in dispensing with trial and rendering summary judgment. Reasoning - Auman v. Estenzo: Summary judgment is a judgment w/c court may render before trial but after both parties have pleaded. It is ordered upon application by one party, supported by affidavits, depositions and other documents, with notice upon adverse party who may file opposition, also supported by documents. Court summarily hears and finds that there is no genuine issue between them. - Marcoses failed to tender genuine issues in their answer. A genuine issue is an issue of fact w/c calls for presentation of evidence, as distinguished from fictitious issue. Their defenses of lack of knowledge for lack of privity or inability to recall because it happened a long time ago or funds were lawfully acquired are fully insufficient. - Imelda claimed that the funds were lawfully acquired but failed to particularly state the ultimate facts surrounding the lawful manner or mode of acquisition. - One of the modes of specific denial is a denial by saying that defendant is w/o knowledge / info sufficient to form belief as to the truth of material averment in the complaint. But if an allegation directly charges a party with having done a particular act w/c latter didnt in fact do, a categorical and express denial must be made. - Imeldas denial is a negative pregnant, a denial pregnant w/ admission of substantial facts in pleading responded to w/c are not squarely denied. It is in effect an admission. The denial, in effect, admitted that the Swiss bank deposits existed and that the sum was estimated at US$356 million. - Marcoses denial for lack of knowledge was just a pretense. Imeldas privity to the transactions was evident from her signatures on some of documents. - Respondents answer also technically admitted the genuineness and due execution of the Income Tax Returns and balance sheets of Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos, as well as the veracity of the contents. Marcoses could have determined the ITR and balance sheets genuineness through the BIR and Office of President. They didnt. - Imelda insists in her memorandum that her counsel stated that his client was just a beneficiary of the funds, contrary to Republics allegation that Imelda disclaimed ownership of the funds. In the Compromise, Marcoses sought to implement the

distribution of the Marcos assets, including the Swiss deposits, and this was an unequivocal admission of ownership of the deposits. - Summary judgment is a procedural device for the prompt disposition of actions in which pleadings raise only a legal issue, not a genuine issue as to any material fact. - Marcoses contend that by its positive acts and express admissions prior to filing the motion for summary judgment, Republic bound itself to go to trial and it waived whatever right it had to move for summary judgment. But according to Rule 35 of 1997 Rules, plaintiff can move for summary judgment at any time after the pleading in answer thereto has been served. - Ecker v. Muzysh: Even if the plaintiff proceeded to trial, this doesnt preclude him from moving for summary judgment. Here, petitioner moved for summary judgment after pre-trial and before presentation of evidence. The phrase in RoC anytime after pleading in answer thereto has been served means at any stage of the litigation. - Marcoses allege that the records had long been with petitioner. Thus, by the time motion was filed, estoppel by laches had set in. - Here, estoppel doesnt lie. Petitioner was never remiss in pursuing its case. And take note that the first motion for summary judgment was denied because of the compromise agreement. But the Marcoses denied ownership of the funds, prompting petitioner to file another motion for summary judgment. - Even assuming laches set in, estoppel doesnt apply when government sues as sovereign or asserts governmental rights. Nor can estoppel validate an act that contravenes law or public policy. 4. YES. Ratio - Law raises prima facie presumption that a property is unlawfully acquired if its amount or value is manifestly disproportionate to official salary and other lawful income of the public officer. Reasoning - Marcoses failed to specifically deny each and every allegation in the petition for forfeiture. Purpose of requiring respondents to make specific denial is to make them disclose facts w/c will disprove allegations, together w/ matters they rely upon in support of denial. - It was not Republics duty to establish Marcoses other lawful income. Marcoses should have stated the same. - Also, Marcoses didnt file any Statement of Assets and Liabilities, a violation of the law.