Scribd
Upload
386 views2 pages

GR No. 173082 (2014) - Rep. of The Phil. v. Sandiganbayan

The Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered assets belonging to Palm Avenue Realty and Development Corporation and Palm Avenue Holding Company, including shares of stock in Benguet Corporation. The Republic filed a complaint against the companies in the Sandiganbayan but did not initially name them as defendants. The court later ordered the companies be impleaded in the case. However, the Republic failed to file a proper bill of particulars to fully inform the companies of the charges against them as ordered by the court. As a result, the court dismissed the amended complaint against the Palm Avenue companies, terminating the writ of sequestration over their assets.

Uploaded by

Nikki Estores Gonzales
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
386 views2 pages

GR No. 173082 (2014) - Rep. of The Phil. v. Sandiganbayan

The Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered assets belonging to Palm Avenue Realty and Development Corporation and Palm Avenue Holding Company, including shares of stock in Benguet Corporation. The Republic filed a complaint against the companies in the Sandiganbayan but did not initially name them as defendants. The court later ordered the companies be impleaded in the case. However, the Republic failed to file a proper bill of particulars to fully inform the companies of the charges against them as ordered by the court. As a result, the court dismissed the amended complaint against the Palm Avenue companies, terminating the writ of sequestration over their assets.

Uploaded by

Nikki Estores Gonzales
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/ 2

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT


v.
HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PALM AVENUE REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AND PALM AVENUE HOLDING COMPANY, INC.

G.R. No. 173082, August 06, 2014


PONENTE: PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:

Through a writ of sequestration , the Presidential Commission


on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered all the assets, properties,
records, and documents of the Palm Companies. Said sequestered
assets included 16,237,339 Benguet Corporation shares of stock,
registered in the name of the Palm Companies. The PCGG had
relied on a letter from the Palm Companies’ Attorney-in-Fact, Jose S.
Sandejas, specifically identifying Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, a
known crony of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, as the
beneficial owner of the Benguet Corporation shares in the Palm
Companies’ name.

The Republic, represented by the PCGG, filed a complaint with


the Sandiganbayan docketed as Civil Case No. 0035 but did not
initially implead the Palm Companies as defendants. However, the
Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution dated June 16, 1989 where it
ordered said companies to be impleaded. The Court subsequently
affirmed this order to implead in G.R. No. 90667 on November 5,
1991. Pursuant to said order, the Republic filed an amended
complaint dated January 17, 1997 and named therein the Palm
Companies as defendants. The graft court admitted the amended
complaint on October 15, 2001.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court erred in ordering the dismissal of the


Third Amended Complaint in so far as the charges against the Palm
Avenue Companies are concerned due to plaintiff Republic’s failure
to file the proper bill of particulars.
RULING:

The Court deemed it just and proper to order the dismissal of


the expanded Second Amended Complaint, insofar as the charges
against Virata are concerned. The Court relied on Section 3, Rule 17
of the Rules of Court, which provides that:

Sec. 3. Failure to prosecute. — If plaintiff fails to appear at the


time of the trial, or to prosecute his action for an unreasonable length
of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the court, the
action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the
court's own motion. This dismissal shall have the effect of an
adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise provided by court.

Similarly, the Republic in the case at bar failed to file a proper


bill of particulars which would completely clarify and amplify the
charges against the Palm Companies. For said failure to comply with
the graft court's order to file the required bill of particulars that would
completely and fully inform the Palm Companies of the charges
against them, the amended complaint impleading said companies
necessarily failed to state a cause of action, warranting the dismissal
of the case as to them. By the dismissal of the case as against the
Palm Companies, there is ipso facto no more writ of sequestration to
speak of.

You might also like