Case 2: Vs - Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Jose L

Case 2
TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), JOSE L.
AFRICA (substituted by his heirs), MANUEL H. NIETO,
JR., FERDINAND E. MARCOS (substituted by his
heirs), IMELDA R. MARCOS, FERDINAND R.
MARCOS, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, and
POTENCIANO ILUSORIO (substituted by his heirs)
SOURCE: G.R. No. 152375, December 16, 2011
PONENTE: BRION, J.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, through PCGG, filed a

complaint (docketed as Civil Case No. 0009) against Jose L. Africa, Manuel
H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Ferdinand R.
Marcos, Jr., Juan Ponce Enrile, and PotencianoIlusorio (collectively, the
respondents) for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and
damages before the Sandiganbayan. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that
the respondents illegally manipulated the purchase of the major
shareholdings of Cable and Wireless Limited in Eastern
Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI), which shareholdings
respondents Jose Africa and Manuel Nieto, Jr. held for themselves and,
through their holdings and the corporations they organized, beneficially for
respondents Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.
Civil Case No. 0009 is the main case subject of the present petition
spawned numerous incidental cases, among them, Civil Case No. 0130.
The present respondents were not made parties either in Civil Case No.
0130. The petitioner filed a motion to Admit the Bane Deposition, the
respondents filed their respective Oppositions to the 1st motion; in turn, the
petitioner filed a Common Reply to these Oppositions. Sandiganbayan
promulgated a resolution (1998 resolution) denying the petitioner’s 1st
motion, stating that the petitioners prayer therein to adopt the testimonies
on oral deposition of Maurice V. Bane and Rolando Gapud as part of its
evidence in Civil Case No. 0009 for the reason that said deponents
according to the [petitioner] are not available for cross-examination in this
Court by the [respondents]. The petitioner made its Formal Offer of
Evidence. Significantly, the Bane deposition was not included as part of its
offered exhibits. Rectifying the omission, the petitioner filed an Urgent
Motion and/or Request for Judicial Notice (2nd motion), with the alternative
prayer that An order be issued re-opening the plaintiff’s case and setting
the same for trial for the sole purpose of introducing additional evidence
and limited only to the marking and offering of the [Bane deposition] which
already forms part of the records and used in Civil Case No. 0130; On
several dates thereafter, the respondents separately filed their respective
demurrers to evidence. On the other hand, the petitioner moved for the
reconsideration of the 2000 resolution, but was rebuffed by the
Sandiganbayan in its 2001 resolution . The petitioner filed its 3rd Motion,
seeking once more the admission of the Bane deposition.
Pending resolution of the respondents’ demurrers to evidence, the

Sandiganbayan promulgated the assailed 2002 resolution, denying the
petitioner’s 3rd motion. The Sandiganbayan ruled that Resolution rendered
on 1998 which already denied the introduction in evidence of Bane’s
deposition and which has become final in view of plaintiff’s failure to file any
motion for reconsideration or appeal within the 15-day reglementary period.
Rightly or wrongly, the resolution stands and for this court to grant plaintiff’s
motion at this point in time would in effect sanction plaintiff’s disregard for
the rules of procedure. Plaintiff has slept on its rights for almost two years
and it was only in February of 2000 that it sought to rectify its ineptitude by
filing a motion to reopen its case as to enable it to introduce and offer
Bane’s deposition as additional evidence, or in the alternative for the court
to take judicial notice of the allegations of the deposition. But how can such
a motion be granted when it has been resolved as early as 1998 that the
deposition is inadmissible. Without plaintiff having moved for
reconsideration within the reglementary period, the resolution has attained
finality and its effect cannot be undone by the simple expedient of filing a
motion, which though purporting to be a novel motion, is in reality a motion
for reconsideration of this court’s 1998 ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 1998 resolution of the Sandiganbayan is merely

an interlocutory order.
HELD:
A court order is merely interlocutory in character if it leaves

substantial proceedings. It does not end the task of the court in adjudicating
the parties’ contentions and determining their rights and liabilities as
against each other. In this sense, it is basically provisional in its application.
Under these guidelines, the petitioner is right that the 1998 resolution
is interlocutory. The Sandiganbayan’s denial of the petitioner’s 1st motion
through the 1998 Resolution came at a time when the petitioner had not
even concluded the presentation of its evidence. Plainly, the denial of the
motion did not resolve the merits of the case, as something still had to be
done to achieve this end.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the petition for

lack of merit. No costs.

Case 2: Vs - Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Jose L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2: Vs - Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Jose L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2: Vs - Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), Jose L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2

TITLE: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

The petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, through PCGG, filed a

Pending resolution of the respondents’ demurrers to evidence, the

Whether or not the 1998 resolution of the Sandiganbayan is merely

A court order is merely interlocutory in character if it leaves

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DISMISS the petition for

You might also like