G.R. Nos.

177857-58 September 17, 2009

PHILIPPINE COCONUT PRODUCERS FEDERATION, INC. (COCOFED), MANUEL V. DEL ROSARIO,
DOMINGO P. ESPINA, SALVADOR P. BALLARES, JOSELITO A. MORALEDA, PAZ M. YASON, VICENTE
A. CADIZ, CESARIA DE LUNA TITULAR, and RAYMUNDO C. DE VILLA, Petitioners,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
JOVITO R. SALONGA, WIGBERTO E. TAADA, OSCAR F. SANTOS, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS, and
TEOFISTO L. GUINGONA III, Oppositors-Intervenors.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 178193
***

DANILO B. URUSA, Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
G.R. No. 180705
***

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
VELASCO, JR., J .:
For consideration is the Urgent Motion to Approve the Conversion of the SMC Common Shares into SMC
Series 1 Preferred Shares dated July 24, 2009 (Motion) interposed by petitioners Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc., et al. (collectively, COCOFED). COCOFED seeks the Courts approval of the conversion of
753,848,312 Class "A" and Class "B" common shares of San Miguel Corporation (SMC) registered in the
names of Coconut Industry Investment Fund and the so-called "14 Holding Companies" (collectively known as
"CIIF companies") into 753,848,312 SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares (hereinafter, the Conversion).
SMCs conversion or stock exchange offer is embodied in its Information Statement
1
and yields the following
relevant features:
Instrument - Peso denominated, perpetual, cumulative, non-voting preferred shares with a par value of Php
5.00 per share and Issue Price of Php 75 per share.
Dividend Rate - The SMC Board of Directors shall have the sole discretion to declare dividends on the Series 1
Preferred Shares as redeemed by SMC, the dividend rate shall be at a fixed rate of 8% per annum, payable
quarterly and calculated by reference to the issue price.
Dividend Rate Step Up - Unless the Series 1 Preferred Shares are redeemed by SMC, the Dividend Rate
shall be adjusted at the end of the fifth year to the higher of (a) the Dividend Rate or (b) the prevailing 10-
year PDSTF rate plus a spread of 300 bps.
Optional Redemption and Purchase - SMC has the option, but not the obligation, to redeem all or part of the
Series 1 Preferred Shares on the third anniversary from the Issue Date or on any Dividend Date thereafter at a
redemption price equal to the Issue price of the Preferred Shares plus all cumulated and unpaid cash
dividends.
Preference in the event of the liquidation of SMC - The Series 1 Preferred Shares shall have preference over
the common shares.
Selling costs - All selling costs pertaining to the Common Shares shall be borne by the common shareholders.
x x x (Emphasis added.)
COCOFED proposes to constitute a trust fund to be known as the "Coconut Industry Trust Fund (CITF) for the
Benefit of the Coconut Farmers," with respondent Republic, acting through the Philippine Coconut Authority
(PCA), as trustee. As proposed, the constitution of the CITF shall be subject to terms and conditions which, for
the most part, reiterate the features of SMCs conversion offer, albeit specific reference is made to the shares
of the 14 CIIF companies. Among the terms and conditions are the following:
Standard 1. There must be a prior approval by this Honorable Court in this instant case G.R. No. 177857-58
entitled "COCOFED, et. al. vs. Republic of the Philippines", of the conversion of the sequestered SMC
Common Shares, Both Class "A" and Class "B", registered in the respective names of the 14 CIIF Holding
Companies, into SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares.
Standard 2. The SMC shares to be exchanged are all the shares of stock of SMC that are presently
sequestered and registered in the respective names of the 14 CIIF Holding Companies in the total number of
753,848,312, both Class "A" and Class "B" shares x x x (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the "SMC
Common Shares").
x x x x
Standard 4. The SMC Common Shares shall be converted at an exchange ratio of one (1) SMC Series 1
Preferred Share (hereinafter, "SMC Series 1 Preferred Share") for every one (1) SMC Common Share
tendered. Each SMC Series 1 Preferred Share shall have a par value of (P5.00) per share and an Issue Price
of Seventy Five Pesos per share (P75.00). Dividends on the SMC Series 1 Preferred Share shall be cumulative
and with dividend rate of 8% per annum computed on the Issue Price of Seventy Five Pesos (P75.00) per
share.
x x x x
Standard 6. If and when SMC exercises its right, but not an obligation, to redeem after a period of three (3)
years the SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares, the redemption shall in no case be less than the Issue Price of
Seventy Five Pesos (P75.00) per share plus unpaid cumulative dividends.
x x x x
Standard 8. Upon written appointment to the Board of Governors of the [PCA] of the three (3) nominees
submitted to the President of the Philippines by the [COCOFED], as required by PD 1468, a trust fund is
thereby automatically created to be identified and known as the "Coconut Industry Trust Fund (CITF) For the
Benefit of the Coconut Farmers" and the trustee of the Coconut Industry Trust fund shall be: "The Republic of
the Philippines Acting Through the Philippine Coconut Authority for the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers."
Standard 9. The initial capital of the [CITF] shall be the SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares that will be issued by
SMC as herein described.
Standard 10. Within ten (10) days from and after the date of the final approval by this Honorable Court of the
Conversion, the Republic of the Philippines, acting through the Presidential Commission on Good Government
through its duly authorized Chairman, shall deliver to SMC these documents.
x x x x
Standard 11. As the issuer, SMC shall within a reasonable period from a trade, or exchange, of the SMC
Common Shares into 753,848,312 SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares through the facilities of the Philippine Stock
Exchange, deliver duly-signed and issued SMC Series 1 Preferred Stock Certificate(s) in the name of "The
Republic of the Philippines acting though the Philippine Coconut Authority as Trustee of the Coconut Industry
Trust Fund (CITF) For the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers."
Standard 12. Upon compliance by the SMC with its reciprocal obligations according to the terms and intent of
the approval by this Honorable Court, then it shall acquire absolute ownership of the SMC Common Shares
free from all liens, writs, demands, or claims x x x.
Standard 13. The trustee of the [CITF] shall have no authority to sell, dispose, assign, encumber or otherwise
impair the value of the SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares, unless the same are redeemed by SMC in accordance
with its Articles of Incorporation, as amended.
Standard 14. For purposes of ascertaining x x x the identities and addresses of coconut farmers, the
beneficiaries of the developmental projects herein authorized to be financed, a ground survey of coconut
farmers as presently defined, or hereafter defined, by the [PCA], shall be conducted by the [PCA] x x x.
Standard 15. Thirty (30) days after the receipt of any dividend paid on the SMC Series 1 preferred Shares, the
net proceeds x x x shall be disbursed by the Trustee in favor of these entities in these proportions:
a. Forty percent (40%) Coconut Industry Trust Fund constituted under Paragraph 11, Standard 8 and
Standard 9 hereof which the Trustee should invest and re-invest only in the permissible investments
authorized under Paragraph 11, Standard 16.
b. Twenty percent (20%) To the (PCA) "in trust and for the benefit of the coconut farmers", being the
governmental agency designated by law to implement projects for the coconut industry.
c. Twenty percent (20%) To the [COCOFED], in its capacity as the duly recognized organization of
the coconut farmers with the highest membership.
d. Twenty percent (20%) To the PCA Accredited Other Coconut Farmers organizations The
trustee shall disburse this allocation to each and all of those PCA Accredited Other Coconut Farmers
Organizations.
Standard 16. In the event of redemption of the SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares, whether in full or in part, the
proceeds of such redemption shall form part of the capital of the [CITF] which the Trustee shall invest, within a
period of forty eight (48) hours from receipt of the proceeds of such redemption, and reinvest in these
permissible investments x x x.
2

To the basic motion, respondent Republic filed its Comment questioning COCOFEDs personality to seek the
Courts approval of the desired conversion. Respondent Republic also disputes COCOFEDs right to impose
and prescribe terms and conditions on the proposed conversion, maintaining that the CIIF SMC common
shares are sequestered assets and are in custodia legis under Presidential Commission on Good
Governments (PCGGs) administration. It postulates that, owing to the sequestrated status of the said common
shares, only PCGG has the authority to approve the proposed conversion and seek the necessary Court
approval. In this connection, respondent Republic cites Republic v. Sandiganbayan
3
where the coconut levy
funds were declared as prima facie public funds, thus reinforcing its position that only PCGG, a government
agency, can ask for approval of the conversion.
On September 4, 2009, Jovito R. Salonga and four others sought leave to intervene. Attached to the motion
was their Comment/Opposition-in-Intervention, asserting that "the government bears the burden of showing
that the conversion is indubitably advantageous to the public interest or will result in clear and material benefit.
Failure of the government to carry the burden means that the current status of the sequestered stocks should
be maintained pending final disposition of G.R. Nos. 177857-58." They further postulate that "even assuming
that the proposal to convert the SMC shares is beneficial to the government, it cannot pursue the exchange
offer because it is without power to exercise acts of strict dominion over the sequestered shares." Lastly, they
argue that "the proposed conversion x x x is not only not advantageous to the public interest but is in fact
positively disadvantageous."
On September 4, 2009, respondent Republic filed a Supplemental Comment in which it cited the Partial
Summary Judgment rendered by the Sandiganbayan on May 27, 2004 in Civil Case No. 33-F, declaring the
Republic as owner, in trust for the coconut farmers, of the subject CIIF SMC shares (27%). The same comment
also referred to Resolution No. 365-2009 passed on August 28, 2009 by the United Coconut Planters Bank
(UCPB) Board of Directors expressing the sense that "the proposed conversion of the CIIF SMC common
shares to SMC Series I preferred shares is financially beneficial."
4
Reference was also made to PCGG
Resolution 2009-037-756 dated September 2, 2009, requesting the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to
seek approval of this Court for the proposed conversion.
5
By way of relief, respondent Republic prayed that the
PCGG be allowed to proceed and effect the conversion.
On the preliminary issue as to the proper party to seek the imprimatur on the conversion, the Court rules that it
is the PCGG, not COCOFED, that is authorized to seek the approval of the Court of the Series 1 preferred
shares conversion.
As records show, PCGG sequestered the 753,848,312 SMC common shares registered in the name of CIIF
companies on April 7, 1986.
6
From that time on, these sequestered shares became subject to the
management, supervision, and control of PCGG, pursuant to Executive Order No. (EO) 1, Series of 1986,
creating that commission and vesting it with the following powers:
Sec. 3. The Commission shall have the power and authority:
x x x x
(b) To sequester or place or cause to be placed under its control or possession any building or office wherein
any ill-gotten wealth or properties may be found, and any records pertaining thereto, in order to prevent their
destruction, concealment or disappearance which would frustrate or hamper the investigation or otherwise
prevent the Commission from accomplishing its task.
(c) To provisionally take over in the public interest or to prevent its disposal or dissipation, business enterprises
and properties taken over by the government of the Marcos Administration or by entities or persons close to
former President Marcos, until the transactions leading to such acquisition by the latter can be disposed of by
the appropriate authorities.
Eventually, the coconut levy funds that were used to acquire the sequestered CIIF SMC common shares in
question were peremptorily determined to be prima facie public funds. The Court, in Republic v.
COCOFED,
7
elucidated on the nature of the coconut levy funds:
Coconut Levy Funds Are Prima Facie Public Funds
To avoid misunderstanding and confusion, this Court will even be more categorical and positive than its earlier
pronouncements: the coconut levy funds are not only affected with public interest; they are, in fact, prima facie
public funds.
Public funds are those moneys belonging to the State or to any political subdivision of the State; more
specifically, taxes, customs duties and moneys raised by operation of law for the support of the government or
for the discharge of its obligations. Undeniably, coconut levy funds satisfy this general definition of public funds,
because of the following reasons:
1. Coconut levy funds are raised with the use of the police and taxing powers of the State.
2. They are levies imposed by the State for the benefit of the coconut industry and its farmers.
3. Respondents have judicially admitted that the sequestered shares were purchased with public
funds.
x x x x
6. The very laws governing coconut levies recognize their public character.
8

x x x x
2. Coconut Funds Are Levied for the Benefit of the Coconut Industry and Its Farmers.
x x x x
And explaining the PCGGs authority to vote the sequestered shares acquired from the coconut levy, the Court
further wrote:
Having Been Acquired With Public Funds, UCPB Shares Belong, Prima Facie, to the Government
Having shown that the coconut levy funds are not only affected with public interest, but are in fact prima facie
public funds, this Court believes that the government should be allowed to vote the questioned shares,
because they belong to it as the prima facie beneficial and true owner.
As stated at the beginning, voting is an act of dominion that should be exercised by the share owner. One of
the recognized rights of an owner is the right to vote at meetings of the corporation. The right to vote is
classified as the right to control. Voting rights may be for the purpose of, among others, electing or removing
directors, amending a charter, or making or amending by laws. Because the subject UCPB shares were
acquired with government funds, the government becomes their prima facie beneficial and true owner.
Ownership includes the right to enjoy, dispose of, exclude and recover a thing without limitations other than
those established by law or by the owner. x x x And the right to vote shares is a mere incident of ownership. In
the present case, the government has been shown to be the prima facie owner of the funds used to purchase
the shares. Hence, it should be allowed the rights and privileges flowing from such fact.
9

Time and again, the Court has likened sequestration to preliminary attachment and receivership under Rules
57 and 59 of the Rules of Court and has accordingly applied the said rules to sequestration cases. So it was
that in Republic v. Sandiganbayan
10
the Court noted that the powers and duties of the PCGG as conservator
and protector of sequestered assets are virtually the same as those possessed by a receiver under Rule 59,
Section 6:
SEC. 6. General powers of receiver.Subject to the control of the court in which the action or proceeding is
pending, a receiver shall have the power to bring and defend, in such capacity, actions in his own name; to
take and keep possession of the property in controversy; to receive rents; to collect debts due to himself as
receiver or to the fund, property, estate, person, or corporation of which he is the receiver; to compound for and
compromise the same; to make transfers; to pay outstanding debts; to divide the money and other property that
shall remain among the persons legally entitled to receive the same; and generally to do such acts respecting
the property as the court may authorize. However, funds in the hands of a receiver may be invested only by
order of the court upon the written consent of all the parties to the action.
No action may be filed by or against a receiver without leave of the court which appointed him. (Emphasis
supplied.)
And in Republic v. Sandiganbayan,
11
the Court observed that "the PCGGs power to sequester alleged ill-gotten
properties is likened to the provisional remedies of preliminary attachment or receivership which are always
subject to the control of the court."
The PCGG, therefore, as the "receiver" of sequestered assets and in consonance with its duty under EO 1,
Series of 1986, to protect and preserve them, has the power to exercise acts of dominion provided that those
acts are approved by the proper court.
From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that it is the PCGGnot COCOFED or the CIIF companiesthat has
the right and/or authority during sequestration to seek this Courts approval for the proposed conversion.
Consequently, the terms and conditions sought by COCOFED for the conversion are not material to the
proposed conversion. At most, COCOFEDs prayer for approval of the conversion reflects its conformity to said
transfiguration.
After a circumspect evaluation of the incident at bar, we resolve to approve the conversion, taking into account
certain circumstances and hard economic realities as discussed below:
Contrary to the assertion of intervenors Salonga, et al., respondent Republic has satisfactorily demonstrated
that the conversion will redound to the clear advantage and material benefit of the eventual owner of the CIIF
SMC shares in question.
Positive action must be taken in order to preserve the value of the sequestered CIIF SMC common shares. The
worldwide economic crisis that started last year affected the Philippines and adversely impacted on several
banks and financial institutions, resulting in billions of loses. The Philippine Stock Exchange Index retreated by
a record 12.3% on October 27, 2008, the biggest single day fall since July 24, 1987. This year, 2009, the
recorded index of 2,859 has not regained the pre-October 27, 2008 level of 3,837.89.
Moreover, the CIIF SMC shares traded in the local bourse have substantially dropped in value in the last two
(2) years. The SMC Class "A" shares, which commanded the unit price of PhP 48 per share as of November 6,
2008, were trading at PhP 57.50 in 2007 and PhP 65 in 2006. SMC Class "B" shares, on the other hand, which
fetched a price of PhP 49 per share on November 6, 2008, were priced at PhP 61 in 2007 and PhP 74.50 in
2006. As of June 1, 2009, Class "A" and Class "B" common shares of CIIF SMC closed at PhP 53.50 and PhP
54 per unit, respectively. CIIF SMC share prices may decline over the years.
No doubt shares of stock are not the safest of investments, moored as they are on the ever changing
worldwide and local financial conditions. The proposed conversion would provide better protection either to the
government or to the eventually declared real stock owners, depending on the final ruling on the ownership
issue. In the event SMC suffers serious financial reverses in the short or long term and seeks insolvency
protection, the owners of the preferred shares, being considered creditors, shall have, vis--vis common stock
shareholders, preference in the corporate assets of the insolvent or dissolved corporation. In the case of the
SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares, these preferential features are made available to buyers of said shares and
are amply protected in the investment.
12

More importantly, the conversion will ensure a higher cumulative and fixed dividend rate of 8% per annum
computed at an issue price of PhP 75 per share, a yield not currently available to common shareholders. The
OSG succinctly explained the undeniable advantages to be gained from the conversion, thus:
Assuming that the data contained in the SMC Information Sheet is accurate and true, the closing prices of SMC
Common Class "A" and "B" Shares, as of June 1, 2009, are Fifty-three pesos and 50/100 (P53.50) and Fifty-
four Pesos (P54.00), respectively. The proposed conversion into Series 1 Preferred Shares would give said
share an issue price of seventy-five pesos (P75.00) per share. Corollarily, while the current SMC Common
shares have no fixed dividend rate, the Series 1 Preferred Shares have a determined dividend rate of eight
percent (8%) per annum. On these points alone, the benefits to the shareholders are clearly quantifiable.
Further still, the SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares are deemed cumulative. As a cumulative share with
preference in the payment of dividends, it is entitled to cumulate the dividends in those years where no
dividend is declared. Thus, if a cumulative share is entitled to 10% of par value as cumulative dividend yearly,
where no dividends are declared in 1989, 1990 and 1991 because there are no profits, and dividends are
declared in 1992 because of surplus or unrestricted earnings, the holder of the preferred cumulative shares is
entitled to receive 40% of par value as his cumulative dividends for the years 1989 to 1991.
The declaration of dividends is still generally subject to the discretion of the board but once dividends are
declared, the cumulative preferred shareholders are entitled to receive the dividends for the years when no
declaration was made. When dividends are declared, cumulative dividends must be paid regardless of the year
in which they are earned. Therefore, holders of the converted preferred shares are assured of accumulated
annual dividends.
13
(Emphasis added.)
As it were, the issue price of PhP 75 per share represents a 40% premium, more or less, over the prevailing
market price, i.e., about PhP 54 per share, of the CIIF SMC common shares as of June 1, 2009. The 40%
premium amply covers the "block" and "control" features of the CIIF SMC common shares. These shares below
33.33% are, to many, not even considered vested with "control" premium. It can be safely assumed that the
issue price of PhP 75 per share was based on an independent valuation of the CIIF SMC shares, a requisite
usually prescribed as a prelude to Board approval.
The redemption value of the preferred shares depends upon and is actually tied up with the issue price plus all
the cumulated and unpaid dividends. This redemption feature is envisaged to effectively eliminate the market
volatility risks on the side of the share owners. Undoubtedly, these are clear advantages and benefits that inure
to the share owners who, on one hand, prefer a stable dividend yield on their investments and, on the other
hand, want security from the uncertainty of market forces over which they do not have control.
Recent developments saw SMC venturing and diversifying into several huge projects (i.e., oil, power,
telecommunications), business moves which understandably have caused some critics to raise the concern
over a possible prejudice to the CIIF SMC common shares presently under sequestration should such
investments turn sour. A number of people claim these new acquisitions are likely to dissipate the assets of
SMC. Some sectors ratiocinate that the huge capital investments poured into these projects may substantially
erode SMCs profitability in the next few years, resulting in diminished dividends declaration. The proposed
conversion will address the concerns and allay the fears of well meaning sectors, and insulate and protect the
sequestered CIIF SMC shares from potential damage or loss.
Moreover, the conversion may be viewed as a sound business strategy to preserve and conserve the value of
the governments interests in CIIF SMC shares. Preservation is attained by fixing the value today at a
significant premium over the market price and ensuring that such value is not going to decline despite negative
market conditions. Conservation is realized thru an improvement in the earnings value via the 8% per annum
dividends versus the uncertain and most likely lower dividends on common shares.
A fixed dividend rate of 8% per annum translates to PhP 6 per preferred share or a guaranteed yearly dividend
of PhP 4,523,308,987.20 for the entire sequestered CIIF SMC shares. The figures jibe with the estimate made
by intervenors Salonga, et al.
14
Compare this amount to the dividends declared for common shares for the
recent past years which are in the vicinity of PhP 1.40 per unit share or a total amount of PhP 1,055,387,636.80
per annum. The whopping difference is around PhP 3.5 billion annually or PhP 10.5 billion in three (3) years.
On a year-to-year basis, the difference reflects an estimated increase of 77% in dividend earnings. With the
bold investments of SMC in various lines of business, there is no assurance of substantial earnings in the
coming years. There may even be no earnings. The modest dividends that accrue to the common shares in the
recent years may be a thing of the past and may even be obliterated by poor or unstable performance in the
initial years of operation of newly-acquired ventures.
In the light of the above findings, the Court holds that respondent Republic has satisfactorily hurdled the onus
of showing that the conversion is advantageous to the public interest or will result in clear and material benefit
to the eventually declared stock owners, be they the coconut farmers or the government itself.
In their Comment/Opposition in Intervention, intervenors Salonga, et al., however, assert that the proposed
conversion is positively disadvantageous to respondent. They label the conversion as a "devious compromise
favorable only to COCOFED and Cojuangco, Jr." This allegation is simply conjectural. No evidence of the
alleged compromise was presented, as it was only COCOFED that initiated the proposal for conversion.
The claim that the Cojuangco, Jr. group will be able to oust the government nominees from the SMC Board,
buy the sequestered shares without encumbrances, and do so with SMC funds is inaccurate and even
speculative. Intervenors completely miss the point. The genuine issue is whether or not the desired conversion
will be beneficial and advantageous to the government or the eventual owners of the shares. The perceived full
control by Cojuangco, Jr. over SMC after the common shares are released from sequestration is hardly
relevant to the propriety of the conversion. Intervenors have not been able to demonstrate how the domination
of SMC by Cojuangco, Jr., if that should come to pass, will prejudice or impair the interests of respondent
Republic in the preferred shares. The more important consideration in the exercise at hand is the preservation
and conservation of the preferred shares and the innumerable benefits and substantial financial gains that will
redound to the owner of these shares.
The conversion, so intervenors claim, will result in the loss of voting rights of PCGG in SMC and enable
Cojuangco, Jr. to acquire the sequestered shares, without encumbrances, using SMC funds. This is incorrect.
The common shares after conversion and release from sequestration become treasury stocks or shares.
Treasury shares under Sec. 9 of the Corporation Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 68) are "shares of stock which
have been issued and fully paid for, but subsequently reacquired by the issuing corporation by purchase,
redemption, donation or through some other lawful means. Such shares may again be disposed of for a
reasonable price fixed by the board of directors."
A treasury share or stock, which may be common or preferred, may be used for a variety of corporate
purposes, such as for a stock bonus plan for management and employees or for acquiring another company. It
may be held indefinitely, resold or retired. While held in the companys treasury, the stock earns no dividends
and has no vote in company affairs.
15
Thus, the CIIF common shares that would become treasury shares are
not entitled to voting rights. And should conversion push through, SMC, not Cojuangco, Jr., becomes the owner
of the reacquired sequestered CIIF SMC common shares. Should SMC opt, however, to sell said shares in the
future, prospective buyers, including possibly Cojuangco, Jr., have to put up their own money to acquire said
common shares. Thus, it is erroneous for intervenors to say that Cojuangco, Jr., with the use of SMC funds, will
be acquiring the CIIF SMC common shares.
It bears to stress that it was SMC which amended its articles of incorporation, reclassifying the existing
composition of the authorized capital stock from PhP 4.5 billion common shares to PhP 3.39 billion common
shares and PhP 1.11 billion Series 1 Preferred Shares. The conversion in question is a legitimate exercise of
corporate powers under the Corporation Code. The shares in question will not be acquired with SMC funds but
by reason of the reconfiguration of said shares to preferred shares.
The Court can perhaps take judicial notice of the governments enunciated policy to reduce, if not eliminate, its
exposure to business. The PCGG has held on to the sequestered shares for more than 20 years and this may
be the opportune time to do away with its participation in SMC, especially considering the claim that the
sequestration of the CIIF SMC common shares has frightened away investors and stunted growth of the
company.
The only interest of PCGG in SMC is to protect the CIIF SMC common shares from dissipation. PCGG is
neither tasked to bar Cojuangco, Jr., or any individual for that matter, from securing domination of the SMC
Board, nor avert Cojuangco, Jr.s acquisition of the CIIF SMC common shares once released from
sequestration. Even if the conversion is approved, nothing can prevent the government from prosecuting the
people whom intervenors tag as responsible for "greasing the government and the coconut farmers of billions
of pesos."
On the other hand, COCOFED does not stand to benefit from the conversion, because portions of the
dividends or proceeds from the redemption cannot be allocated directly to proposed beneficiaries, as this will
be contrary to Sec. 2 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 961,
16
as amended by PD 1468. In addition, the preferred
shares which will be placed in the names of the CIIF companies, or the dividends derived from said shares,
shall remain as sequestered assets until final resolution of the ownership issue.
Intervenors suggest a deferment of any action on the conversion until the CIIF SMC shares ownership issue is
settled. The General Offer of conversion, originally expiring on August 24, 2009, was extended up to
September 21, 2009. Availment of the conversion calls for immediate action. Almost all of the parties-in-
interestCOCOFED, UCPB as administrator of the CIIF, and respondent Republic through PCGGhave in
one way or another signified their assent to the conversion.
It has not successfully been demonstrated, however, how the alleged eventual ownership by Cojuangco, Jr. of
the sequestered shares will prejudice the interests of respondent Republic in the preferred shares. It cannot
likewise be figured out what distinct benefits the government will obtain if the common shares are converted to
preferred shares or used in another manner after final resolution of the ownership issue.
The indicated advantages of conversion, if accomplished now, will surely make up for the apprehensions
arising from the possible domination by Cojuangco, Jr. of the SMC in the future. The primordial consideration is
that the shares be shielded from dissipation and potential risks that may arise from uncertainty of market and
business conditions. The conversion will ensure stable share value and enhanced earnings of the shares.
Lest it be overlooked, the decision on whether to proceed with the conversion or defer action thereon until final
adjudication of the issue of ownership over the sequestered shares properly pertains to the executive branch,
represented by the PCGG. Just as it cannot look into the wisdom behind the enactment of a law, the Court
cannot question the wisdom and reasons behind the decision of the executive branch to ask for the conversion
of the common shares to preferred shares. Else, the Court would be trenching on the well-settled doctrine of
separation of powers. The cardinal postulate explains that the three branches must discharge their respective
functions within the limits of authority conferred by the Constitution. Under the principle of separation of powers,
neither Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary may encroach on fields allocated to the other branches of
government. The legislature is generally limited to the enactment of laws, the executive to the enforcement of
laws, and the judiciary to their interpretation and application to cases and controversies.
17

Jurisprudence is well-established that the courts cannot intervene or interfere with executive or legislative
discretion exercised within constitutional limits. In JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
18
the Court
explained:
The discretion to accept or reject a bid and award contracts is vested in the Government agencies entrusted
with that function. The discretion given to the authorities on this matter is of such wide latitude that the Courts
will not interfere therewith, unless it is apparent that it is used as a shield to a fraudulent award (Jalandoni v.
NARRA, 108 Phil. 486 [1960]). x x x The exercise of this discretion is a policy decision that necessitates prior
inquiry, investigation, comparison, evaluation, and deliberation. This task can best be discharged by the
Government agencies x x x. The role of the Courts is to ascertain whether a branch or instrumentality of the
Government has transgressed its constitutional boundaries. But the Courts will not interfere with executive or
legislative discretion exercised within those boundaries. Otherwise, it strays into the realm of policy decision-
making.
It is only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion that the Courts will set aside the award of a contract
made by a government entity. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise
of power (Filinvest Credit Corp. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, No. 65935, 30 September 1988, 166 SCRA
155). The abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, as to act at all in contemplation of law, where the power is
exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or hostility (Litton Mills, Inc. v. Galleon
Trader, Inc., et al., L-40867, 26 July 1988, 163 SCRA 489). (Emphasis supplied.)
In Ledesma v. Court of Appeals,
19
the Court added:
x x x [A] court is without power to directly decide matters over which full discretionary authority has been
delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the government. It is not empowered to substitute its
judgment for that of Congress or of the President. It may, however, look into the question of whether such
exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion.
In Francisco, Jr. v. UEM-MARA Philippines Corporation,
20
the Court elucidated the co-equal status of the three
branches of government:
Considering the co-equal status of the three branches of government, courts may not tread into matters
requiring the exercise of discretion of a functionary or office in the executive and legislative branches, unless it
is clearly shown that the government official or office concerned abused his or its discretion. x x x
Furthermore,
"x x x courts, as a rule, refuse to interfere with proceedings undertaken by administrative bodies or officials in
the exercise of administrative functions. This is so because such bodies are generally better equipped
technically to decide administrative questions and that non-legal factors, such as government policy on the
matter, are usually involved in the decisions." (Emphasis supplied.)
Corollary to the principle of separation of powers is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction that the courts will
DEFER to the decisions of the administrative offices and agencies by reason of their expertise and experience
in the matters assigned to them. Administrative decisions on matters within the jurisdiction of administrative
bodies are to be respected and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of
law.
21

The only instance when the Courts ought to interfere is when a department or an agency has acted with grave
abuse of discretion or violated a law. A circumspect review of the pleadings and evidence extant on record
shows that the PCGG approved the conversion only after it conducted an in-depth inquiry, thorough study, and
judicious evaluation of the pros and cons of the proposed conversion. PCGG took into consideration the
following:
(1) Resolution of the UCPB Board of Directors approved during its July 20, 2009 special meeting,
where it categorically decided and concluded that it is financially beneficial to convert the CIIF SMC
shares as offered by the SMC.
(2) Resolution No. 365-2009 of the UCPB Board of Directors issued on August 28, 2009 reiterating its
position that the proposed conversion is financially beneficial, thus:
WHEREAS, in its regular meeting on June 26, 2009, the UCPB Board of Directors instructed
the UCPB-TBG to undertake a study on the financial and economic viability of the proposed
SMC share conversion;
WHEREAS, the UCPB Board of Directors in a special meeting on July 16, 2009 noted and
referred to the PCGG and CIIF 14 Holding Companies for appropriate action UCPB-TBGs
study on the financial and economic viability of the proposed SMC share conversion, which
states that, "x x x it would be more advantageous to convert the CIIFs SMC common shares
to the proposed SMC Series "1" Preferred Shares.";
WHEREAS, during a special meeting on July 20, 2009 among the UCPB committee, PCGG
and CIIF 14 Holding Companies, UCPB-TBGs study on the financial and economic viability of
the proposed SMC share conversion was affirmed and endorsed to the PCGG and CIIF 14
Holding Companies for appropriate action;
WHEREAS, apart from the legal issues surrounding the CIIF SMC shares and considering the
immediate concern to preserve the value of the said shares, taking into account the current
global financial crisis and its effects on the Philippine financial situation, and as recommended
by the UCPB-TBG, the proposed SMC share conversion is financially and economically
advantageous;
WHEREAS, in addition, given the dynamic market environment, when the shares are
converted, the shareholders will no longer gain from any profits or suffer from any losses
resulting from the change in business strategy of SMC, or from any change in the economic
situation or market developments;
BE IT RESOLVED, That, based on the facts and circumstances prevailing as of even date
and the results of the study conducted by the UCPB-TBG, UCPB, as the administrator of the
CIIF and in compliance with its mandate under PD 1468, concluded that it is financially
beneficial to convert the CIIF SMC shares as offered by the San Miguel Corporation.
(Emphasis supplied.)
(3) The Department of Finance, through Secretary Margarito B. Teves, upon the recommendation of
the Development Bank of the Philippines, confirmed that the CIIF SMC shares conversion is financially
and economically advantageous and that it shall work for the best interest of the farmers who are the
ultimate and beneficial owners of said shares.
(4) The letter of the OSG dated July 30, 2009 opined that the proposed conversion is legally allowable
as long as PCGG approval is obtained, thus:
Parenthetically, x x x our Office received a copy of COCOFED, et al.s Urgent Motion To Approve the
Conversion of the SMC Common Share Into SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares dated July 24, 2009. Attached
therewith is the SMC Notice of Regular Meeting and Information Statement dated July 23, 2009 which
discusses and compares the common shares and Series 1 preferred shares. As can be gleaned from the x x x
Information Statement dated July 23, 2009, the advantages of conversion of the common shares to Series 1
preferred shares are as follows:
1. The Series 1 preferred shares shall be entitled to receive cash dividends upon declaration made at
the sole option of the Board of Directors, fixed at 8% per annum as determined by Management. On
the other hand, there is no fixed dividend rate for common shares. Further, no dividend shall be
declared and paid to holders of common shares unless cash dividends shall have been declared and
paid to all holders of the Series 1 preferred shares. Moreover, the Series 1 preferred shares are
cumulative, which means that should dividend payments get delayed, it would eventually be paid in the
future. This feature is not available for common shareholders.
2. The Series 1 preferred shares are redeemable in whole or in part, at the sole option of the Company
(SMC), at the end of three (3) years from the Issue Date or on any Dividend Payment Date thereafter,
at the price equal to the Issue Price plus any accumulated unpaid cash dividends. Series 1 preferred
shares are also perpetual or have no stated maturity.
3. Should SMC decide not to redeem the Series 1 preferred shares at the end of the fifth year from
Issue Date, the Dividend Rate will be adjusted to the higher of 8% per annum, and the prevailing 10-
year Philippine Dealing System Treasury Fixing (PDST-F) Rate plus a spread of up to 300 basis
points. This is an advantage because there is the opportunity for the Series 1 Preferred Shareholders
to enjoy a higher dividend rate.
4. The Series 1 preferred shares have preference over common shares upon liquidation.
5. The Series 1 preferred shares shall be listed with the Philippine Stock Exchange within one year
from issue date which should provide liquidity to the issue.
On the other hand, the disadvantages to the conversion are as follows:
1. Holders of Series 1 preferred shares will have no voting rights except as provided by law. Thus, the
PCGGs representatives in the SMC Board will have been effectively removed from participating in the
management of the SMC.
2. Series 1 preferred shares have no maturing date as these are perpetual shares. There is no definite
assurance that the SMC will exercise its option of redemption.
3. Holders of the Series 1 preferred shares shall not be entitled to any participation or share in the
retained earnings remaining after dividend payment shall have been made on Series 1 preferred
shares.
4. There is no expiry date on the SMCs option to redeem the Series 1 Preferred Shares. Should
market interest rates fall below the Dividend Rate, on or after the 3rd anniversary from Issue Date, the
SMC may exercise the option to redeem the Series 1 Preferred Shares.
It is also our considered view that the conversion of the CIIF SMC common shares to SMC Series 1 preferred
shares does not take them away from the jurisdiction of the courts. In conversion, the SMC common shares are
merely reclassified into SMC Series 1 preferred shares without changing the proportional interest of the
stockholder in San Miguel Corporation. Verily, the conversion of the SMC common shares to SMC Series 1
preferred shares does not involve a change in the condition of said shares.
The conversion of the SMC common shares to SMC Series 1 preferred shares and its eventual redemption is
legally allowable as long as the approval of the PCGG is obtained for the amendment of the Articles of
Incorporation of SMC, to allow the creation of the proposed preferred share with its various features. As long as
the PCGG approval is obtained, the exercise of the redemption feature of the SMC in accordance with the
Amended Articles of Incorporation would not constitute a "sale" of the sequestered asset that is prohibited.
Hence, on September 2, 2009, the PCGG issued Resolution No. 2009-037-756 approving the proposed
conversion:
WHEREAS, guided by the foregoing, the Commission interposes no objection to the conversion of the CIIF
shares in SMC, as well as the PCGG ITF-CARP shares, including the qualifying shares issued to
PCGG/government nominee-directors, to Series "1" Preferred shares.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, as it is hereby RESOLVED, that the Commission hereby APPROVES,
as it is hereby APPROVED, the conversion of the CIIF owned common shares, as well as the PCGG ITF-
CARP common shares, including the qualifying shares issued to PCGG/government nominee-directors in San
Miguel Corporation (SMC), to Series "1" Preferred Shares, PURSUANT to the confirmation of the Department
of Finance (DOF) and legal opinion of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), and SUBJECT to the
conditions set forth in the said OSG opinion and requests of the OSG to seek the approval of the Honorable
Supreme Court for the said proposed conversion. (Emphasis supplied.)
The approval by the PCGG, for respondent Republic, of the conversion is a policy decision which cannot be
interfered with in the absence of a showing or proof, as here, that PCGG committed grave abuse of discretion.
In the similar Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation v. PCGG,
22
the Court ruled that the approval by
PCGG of the sale of the sequestered shares of petitioner corporations allegedly owned and controlled by
Kokoy Romualdez was legal and could not be the subject of a writ of certiorari or prohibition, absent proof that
PCGG committed a grave abuse of discretion. The price of PhP 29 per share approved by the PCGG was even
below the prevailing price of PhP 43 per share.
The Court ratiocinated in that case, thus:
It was no doubt in the light of these undeniable actualities, and in an attempt to discharge its responsibility to
preserve the sequestered stock and put an end to its continuing and inexorable depreciation, that the PCGG
performed the acts now subject of attack in the case at bar. Upon these facts and considerations, it cannot be
said that the PCGG acted beyond the scope of the power conferred upon it by law. Indeed, it would appear that
its acts were motivated and guided by the law creating it and prescribing its powers, functions, duties and
responsibilities. Neither can it be said that it acted with grave abuse of discretion. It evidently considered and
assessed the facts, the conflicting positions of the parties concerned, and the options open to it, before taking
the course of action that it did. The possibility that it has erred cannot, to be sure, be completely eliminated. As
above stated, it is entirely possible that a better bargain might have been struck with someone else. What
cannot be denied is that the arrangement actually adopted and implemented has resulted in the satisfactory
reconciliation of the conflicting facts in the case and the preservation of the stock for the benefit of the party that
may finally be adjudged by competent court to be the owner thereof, and to a certain extent, to the advantage
of numerous employees.
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that respondent PCGG has acted without or in excess of the
authority granted to it by law, or with grave abuse of discretion, or that it had exercised judicial or quasi-judicial
functions in this case, correctible by certiorari. The Court thus finds itself bereft of any justification to issue the
prerogative writ of certiorari or prohibition that petitioners seek. (Emphasis supplied.)
Salonga, et al. question the position of respondent Republic that the benefits derived from the conversion are
clearly quantifiable. As they claim, the price differential of PhP 21 per share is only profit on paper and at the
price of losing membership in the SMC Board. Moreover, they point out that the dividends to be distributed to
the common shares may even be higher than the guaranteed 8% dividends.
These contentions are specious. While it is conceded that the price differential of PhP 21 is an unrealized gain,
the clear financial advantage derived from the transaction is not the price differential but the guaranteed 8%
dividend per annum based on the issue price of PhP 75 per share as compared to a much lower dividend rate
that common shares may earn. Worse, there may even be no dividends for the common shares after
distribution of the dividends to the holders of the preferred shares in the event of poor or weak business
performance. In addition, unless the Series 1 Preferred Shares are redeemed at the end of the fifth year from
issue date, the dividend rate of 8% shall be increased based on the following formula:
[T]he dividend rate shall be adjusted to the higher of (i) the Dividend Rate, and (ii) the prevailing 10-year PDST-
F Rate (or such successor benchmark rate) as displayed under the heading "Bid Yield" as published on the
PDEx Page (or such successor page) of Bloomberg (or such successor electronic service provider) at
approximately 11:30 a.m. Manila time on the date corresponding to the end of the fifth year from the Issue Date
(or if not available, the PDST-F Rate on the banking day prior to such date, or if still not available, the nearest
preceding date on which the PDST-F Rate is available, but if such nearest preceding date is more than five
days prior to the date corresponding to the end of the fifth year from the Issue Date, the Board of Directors at
its reasonable discretion shall determine the appropriate substitute rate), plus a spread of up to 300 basis
points, in either case calculated in respect of each share by reference to the Issue Price.
23

Undoubtedly, the holders of preferred shares will have distinct advantages over common shareholders.
By relinquishing its voting rights in the SMC Board through the conversion, the government, it is argued, would
be surrendering its final arsenal in combating the maneuverings to frustrate the recovery of ill-gotten wealth. It
may, as feared, be rendered helpless in preventing an impending peril of a "lurking dissipation."
This contention has no merit.
The mere presence of four (4) PCGG nominated directors in the SMC Board does not mean it can prevent
board actions that are viewed to fritter away the company assets. Even under the status quo, PCGG has no
controlling sway in the SMC Board, let alone a veto power at 24% of the stockholdings. In relinquishing the
voting rights, the government, through PCGG, is not in reality ceding control.
Moreover, PCGG has ample powers to address alleged strategies to thwart recovery of ill-gotten wealth. Thus,
the loss of voting rights has no significant effect on PCGGs function to recover ill-gotten wealth or prevent
dissipation of sequestered assets.
It is also not correct to say that the holders of the preferred shares lose all their voting rights. Sec. 6 of the
Corporation Code provides for the situations where non-voting shares like preferred shares are granted voting
rights, viz:
Section 6. Classification of shares.The shares of stock in corporations may be divided into classes or series
of shares, or both, any of which classes or series of shares may have such rights, privileges or restrictions as
may be stated in the articles of incorporation: Provided, That no share may be deprived of voting rights except
those classified and issues as "preferred" or "redeemable" shares, unless otherwise provided in this Code:
Provided, further, That there shall always be a class or series of shares which have complete voting rights.
x x x x
Where the articles of incorporation provide for non-voting shares in the cases allowed by this Code, the holders
of such shares shall nevertheless be entitled to vote on the following matters:
1. Amendment of the articles of incorporation;
2. Adoption and amendment of by-laws;
3. Sale, lease, exchange, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of all or substantially all of the
corporation property;
4. Incurring, creating or increasing bonded indebtedness;
5. Increase or decrease of capital stock;
6. Merger or consolidation of the corporation with another corporation or other corporations;
7. Investment of corporate funds in another corporation or business in accordance with this Code; and
8. Dissolution of the corporation.
Except as provided in the immediately preceding paragraph, the vote necessary to approve a particular
corporate act as provided in this Code shall be deemed to refer only to stocks with voting rights.
In addition, the holders of the preferred shares retain the right to dissent and demand payment of the fair value
of their shares, to wit:
Sec. 81. Instances of appraisal right.Any stockholder of a corporation shall have the right to dissent and
demand payment of the fair value of his shares in the following instances:
1. In case any amendment to the articles of incorporation has the effect of changing or restricting the
rights of any stockholders or class of shares, or of authorizing preferences in any respect superior to
those of outstanding shares of any class, or of extending or shortening the term of corporate existence;
2. In case of sale, lease, exchange, transfer, mortgage, pledge or other disposition of all or
substantially all of the corporate property and assets as provided in this Code, and
3. In case of merger or consolidation.
Lastly, the preferred shares will be placed under sequestration and management of PCGG. It has powers to
protect and preserve the sequestered preferred shares even if there are no government-nominated directors in
the SMC Board.
Thus, the loss of four (4) board seats would not in reality prejudice the rights and interests of the holders of the
preferred shares. And such loss is compensated by the tremendous financial gains and benefits and enormous
protection from loss or deterioration of the value of the CIIF SMC shares. The advantages accorded to the
preferred shares are undeniable, namely: the significant premium in the price being offered; the preference
enjoyed in the dividends as well as in the liquidation of assets; and the voting rights still retained by preferred
shares in major corporate actions. All things considered, conversion to preferred shares would best serve the
interests and rights of the government or the eventual owner of the CIIF SMC shares.
It is likewise postulated that the dividends distributed to the common shares may end up higher than 8%
guaranteed to preferred shares. This assumption is speculative. With the huge investments SMC poured into
several big ticket projects, it is unlikely that there will be much earnings left to be distributed to common
shareholders. And to reiterate, the decision to convert is best left to the sound business discretion of the
government agencies concerned.
Salonga, et al. also argue that the proposed redemption is a right to buy the preferred shares at less than the
market value. That the market value of the preferred shares may be higher than the issue price of PhP 75 per
share at the time of redemption is possible. But then the opposite scenario is also possible. Again, the Court
need not delve into policy decisions of government agencies because of their expertise and special knowledge
of these matters. Suffice it to say that all indications show that SMC will redeem said preferred shares in the
third year and not later because the dividend rate of 8% it has to pay on said shares is higher than the interest
it will pay to the banks in case it simply obtains a loan. When market prices of shares are low, it is possible that
interest rate on loans will likewise be low. On the other hand, if SMC has available cash, it would be prudent for
it to use such cash to redeem the shares than place it in a regular bank deposit which will earn lower interests.
It is plainly expensive and costly for SMC to keep on paying the 8% dividend rate annually in the hope that the
market value of the shares will go up before it redeems the shares. Likewise, the conclusion that respondent
Republic will suffer a loss corresponding to the difference between a high market value and the issue price
does not take into account the dividends to be earned by the preferred shares for the three years prior to
redemption. The guaranteed PhP 6 per share dividend multiplied by three years will amount to PhP 18. If one
adds PhP 18 to the issue price of PhP 75, then the holders of the preferred shares will have actually attained a
price of PhP 93 which hews closely to the speculative PhP 100 per share price indicated by movants-
intervenors. In effect, there will not be much prejudice to respondent on the assumption that the speculative
PhP 100 per share will be attained.
On the issue of the net dividends accruing to COCOFED, the Court rules that the dividends shall be placed in
escrow either at the Land Bank of the Philippines or at the Development Bank of the Philippines in the name of
respondent Republic and not COCOFED.
Salonga, et al. also contend that PCGG cannot pursue the exchange offer of SMC for want of power to
exercise acts of strict dominion over the sequestered shares.
This is incorrect.
The Court, to be sure, has not barred the conversion of any sequestered common shares of a corporation into
preferred shares. It may be argued that the conversion scheme under consideration may later on be treated as
an indirect sale of the common shares from the registered owner to another person if and when SMC decides
to redeem the Series 1 preferred shares on the third anniversary from the issue date of the preferred shares.
Still, given the circumstances of the pending incident, the Court can validly allow the proposed conversion in
accordance with Rule 57, Sec. 11, in relation to Rule 59, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court. Sec. 11 reads:
SEC. 11. When attached property may be sold after levy on attachment and before entry of judgment.
Whenever it shall be made to appear to the court in which the action is pending, upon hearing with notice to
both parties, that the property attached is perishable, or that the interests of all the parties to the action will be
subserved by the sale thereof, the court may order such property to be sold at public auction in such manner as
it may direct, and the proceeds of such sale to be deposited in court to abide the judgment in the action.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Republic v. Sandiganbayan
24
teaches that sequestration is akin to preliminary attachment or receivership, thus:
As thus described, sequestration, freezing and provisional takeover are akin to the provisional remedy of
preliminary attachment, or receivership. x x x By attachment, a sheriff seizes property of a defendant in a civil
suit so that it may stand as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be obtained, and not disposed
of, or dissipated, or lost intentionally or otherwise, pending the action. x x x By receivership, property, real or
personal, which is subject of litigation, is placed in the possession and control of a receiver appointed by the
Court, who shall conserve it pending final determination of the title or right of possession over it. x x x All these
remediessequestration, freezing, provisional, takeover, attachment and receivershipare provisional,
temporary, designed for particular exigencies, attended by no character of permanency or finality, and always
subject to the control of the issuing court or agency. (Emphasis supplied.)
Even if the conversion-cum-redemption partakes of an indirect sale, PCGG can be allowed to approve the
conversion in line with our ruling in Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation,
25
subject to the approval of
the Court.
Evidently, as long as the interests of all the parties will be subserved by the sale of the sequestered properties,
the Court may allow the properties to be sold. More so, the Rules would allow the mere conversion of the
shares of stock given the evident benefit that all the parties would receive from such conversion that far
outweighs any perceived disadvantage. Thus, the Court is clearly empowered to allow the conversion herein
pressed by the PCGG.
While the PCGG, as sequestrator, does not exercise acts of ownership over sequestered assets, the proper
court, where the case involving the sequestered asset is pending, may, nevertheless, issue a positive and
definite order authorizing the sale of said assets. As we held in Republic v. Sandiganbayan:
Our temporary restraining order lifting the Sandiganbayan restraining order did not, by any stretch of the
imagination, authorize PCGG to sell the Falcon aircraft. A definite and positive order of a court is needed
before the jet plane may be sold. The proper procedure after the lifting of the restraining order was for PCGG to
go to Sandiganbayan and ask for formal authority to sell the aircraft.
26
x x x
The ruling in Republic v. Sandiganbayan voiding the sale by PCGG of a sequestered jet does not apply
squarely to the incident at bar, because PCGG did not, in that case, seek court approval before the sale.
Moreover, PCGG was not able to provide any justification for the seizure of the jet from the lessee. In the
pending incident before the Court, it has long been settled that the CIIF SMC common shares were bought by
what have been declared as prima facie public funds. Thus, the sequestration is justified. More importantly,
respondent Republic, as contained in the Supplemental Comment filed by the OSG dated September 4, 2009,
has adopted Resolution No. 2009-037-756 approving the conversion of the shares, and has prayed for the
approval by the Court of such conversion.
In sum, the conversion of the CIIF SMC Common Shares to Series 1 Preferred Shares should be approved in
the best interests of everyone concerned including the government and the Filipino people.1avvphi1
Once the subject conversion is accomplished, the preferred shares shall remain in custodia legis and their
ownership shall be subject to final ownership determination by the Court. In addition, the preferred shares shall
be registered in the name of the CIIF companies until the final adjudication of the issue as to the true and legal
owners of said shares. Unless and until the ownership issue shall have been resolved with finality, said
preferred shares shall remain under sequestration and PCGG management.
27

WHEREFORE, the Court APPROVES the conversion of the 753,848,312 SMC Common Shares registered in
the name of CIIF companies to SMC SERIES 1 PREFERRED SHARES of 753,848,312, the converted shares
to be registered in the names of CIIF companies in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the
conversion offer set forth in SMCs Information Statement and appended as Annex "A" of COCOFEDs Urgent
Motion to Approve the Conversion of the CIIF SMC Common Shares into SMC Series 1 Preferred Shares. The
preferred shares shall remain in custodia legis and their ownership shall be subject to the final ownership
determination of the Court. Until the ownership issue has been resolved, the preferred shares in the name of
the CIIF companies shall be placed under sequestration and PCGG management.
The net dividend earnings and/or redemption proceeds from the Series 1 Preferred Shares shall be deposited
in an escrow account with the Land Bank of the Philippines or the Development Bank of the Philippines.
Respondent Republic, thru the PCGG, is hereby directed to cause the CIIF companies, including their
respective directors, officers, employees, agents, and all other persons acting in their behalf, to perform such
acts and execute such documents as required to effectuate the conversion of the common shares into SMC
Series 1 Preferred Shares, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Once the conversion is accomplished, the SMC Common Shares previously registered in the names of the CIIF
companies shall be released from sequestration.
SO ORDERED.