Scribd
Upload
70 views3 pages

Edward T. Marcelo, Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation, Et - Al.Vs - Sandiganbayan and The Presidential Commission On Good Government G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007 Garcia, J. Facts

The case involves a contract between Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation and the Philippine Navy for the construction of fiberglass boats. The petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion. The Supreme Court held the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the motion for summary judgment, as the Republic's answers to interrogatories provided no evidence of irregularities in the contract or that Marcelo benefited improperly. The Court reversed the Sandiganbayan's rulings and dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

idmu bcpo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
70 views3 pages

Edward T. Marcelo, Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation, Et - Al.Vs - Sandiganbayan and The Presidential Commission On Good Government G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007 Garcia, J. Facts

The case involves a contract between Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation and the Philippine Navy for the construction of fiberglass boats. The petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment arguing there were no genuine issues of material fact and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Sandiganbayan denied this motion. The Supreme Court held the Sandiganbayan erred in denying the motion for summary judgment, as the Republic's answers to interrogatories provided no evidence of irregularities in the contract or that Marcelo benefited improperly. The Court reversed the Sandiganbayan's rulings and dismissed the complaint.

Uploaded by

idmu bcpo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case 3

TITLE: EDWARD T. MARCELO, MARCELO FIBERGLASS


CORPORATION, et.al.vs.SANDIGANBAYAN and THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT
SOURCE: G.R. No. 156605, August 28, 2007
PONENTE: GARCIA, J.
 
FACTS:

At the core of the case is the contract entered into on June 10, 1982
by and between the Republic, though the Philippine Navy (PN), and
Marcelo Fiberglass Corporation (MFC), represented by its President, herein
petitioner Edward T. Marcelo (Marcelo, hereinafter), for the construction of
55 units of 16.46 fiberglass high-speed boats, at the unit price of
P7,200,000.00, subject to adjustment upon the occurrence of certain
stated contingencies. The same contract underwent amendments, the first
effected sometime in January 1984, and the second, in October 1984.
 
Following the filing by the Republic of its Pre-Trial Brief, Marcelo
submitted his own Pre-Trial Brief With Written Interrogatories, First Set and
Request for Admission1[17] (to admit the truth of the matters of fact stated
in his August 15, 1991 reply to the Republic’s June 5, 1991 request for
admission). On October 15, 1996, MFC filed its Pre-Trial Brief With Written
Interrogatories, First Set and Request for Admission; the other petitioner
corporations, as defendants a quo, filed their Pre-Trial Briefs with Written
Interrogatories First Set on the same day.
 
Of the written interrogatories and request for admission thus
submitted, the Republic filed an answer to that of Marcelo’s.
 
ISSUE:

 The main issue tendered in this joint petition turns on whether or not
respondent Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the motion for
summary judgment of Marcelo, MFC and the other petitioner corporations.
According to the petitioners, “the pleadings of the parties, and the

1
admissions and documentary evidence of the [Republic] show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [they] are entitled to a
[summary] judgment as a matter of law.” 2[29] They thus urgently urge the
reversal of the assailed Resolutions and the consequent dismissal of Civil
Case No. 21.

HELD:

It needs to stress at the outset that Civil Case No. 21 is one of


several suits involving ill-gotten or unexplained wealth that the Republic,
through the PCGG, has initiated. The Court has resolved several similar
cases, establishing in the process doctrinal teachings. As it were, several
sub-issues in the present petition may have already been addressed, if not
rendered moot and academic, in those cases. Accordingly, this petition
shall be resolved taking into stock and in the light of the relevant holdings
and doctrines in those cases, foremost of which is Baseco v. PCGG. There,
the Court made it abundantly clear that the right and duty of the
Government to recover ill-gotten wealth are undisputed. The Court added
the caveat, however, that plain and valid that right may be, a balance must
still be sought to the end that “proper respect be accorded and adequate
protection assured, the fundamental rights of private property and free
enterprise….” Among the things we stressed in BASECO is the need, in ill-
gotten wealth cases, to give due regard to the basic rights of the parties,
with particular emphasis on the right to property and the requirement of
evidentiary substantiation.
 
A reading of the Republic’s answers to Marcelo’s interrogatories
leads us to view, like the Ombudsman, that there was nothing irregular with
the boat supply contract. Neither were the circumstances leading to the
contract award tainted with irregularity. For, the answers yield nothing more
than a reiteration of mere conclusions of fact stated in the underlying
complaint. The complaint does not even state how the conclusion was
arrived at that Marcelo was the real beneficiary of the amounts collected
under the contract, absent factual averments that would support the same.
The Republic’s argument that since MFC did not allege in its motion for
summary judgment that it is not used as a front by Marcelo, then the two
should be treated as one and the same, is simply specious. There is no
such principle as “presumption of piercing the veil of corporate fiction.” Nor

2
could it be simply assumed that by the mere bare allegation or conclusion
of law, in an answer to written interrogatories, that Marcelo is a conduit of
the Marcoses, a genuine issue has been created. On this score, the
Sandiganbayan was certainly in error.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the Resolutions


of the Sandiganbayan dated August 27, 2001 and November 19, 2002
are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, the complaint against the
petitioners in Civil Case No. 21 is DISMISSED.

You might also like