Scribd
Upload
52 views2 pages

Potc Vs Sandiganbayan

The case involved complaints filed by Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp (POTC) and Philippine Communications Satellite Corp (PHILCOMSAT) against the Republic regarding sequestration orders issued against them. The Supreme Court ruled that as POTC and PHILCOMSAT were not impleaded as defendants, the sequestration orders against them are no longer necessary.

Uploaded by

Don Amboy
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
52 views2 pages

Potc Vs Sandiganbayan

The case involved complaints filed by Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp (POTC) and Philippine Communications Satellite Corp (PHILCOMSAT) against the Republic regarding sequestration orders issued against them. The Supreme Court ruled that as POTC and PHILCOMSAT were not impleaded as defendants, the sequestration orders against them are no longer necessary.

Uploaded by

Don Amboy
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

Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corp. vs.

Sandiganbayan

G.R. 174462

2 February 2016

FACTS: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the Republic of
the Philippines, filed a Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting
and Restitution, and Damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 0009, against Jose
L. Africa, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos,
Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Roberto S. Benedicto, Juan Ponce Enrile, and
Potenciano Illusorio.

As alleged in the Complaint, through clever schemes, the wealth that should
go to the coffers of the government, which should be deemed acquired for the
benefit of the Republic, went to the defendants in their own individual
accounts-some, however, through conduits or corporations. The property
supposedly acquired illegally was specifically set out in a list appended to the
Complaint as Annex A. For instance, Jose L. Africa, one of the defendants,
allegedly channeled the ill-gotten wealth in shares of stock in twenty (20)
corporations.

POTC and PHILCOMSAT filed separate complaints for Injunction with the
Sandiganbayan against the Republic to nullify and lift the sequestration order
issued against them for failure to file the necessary judicial action against
them within the period prescribed by the Constitution and to enjoin the PCGG
from interfering with their management and operation.

ISSUE/S: Whether or not the sequestration of POTC and PHILCOMSAT is


still necessary under the present circumstances?

HELD: NO. As POTC and PHILCOMSAT were not impleaded, there is no


longer any existing sequestration on POTC and PHILCOMSAT.
The basic tenets of fair play and principles of justice dictate that a corporation,
as a legal entity distinct and separate from its stockholders, must be
impleaded as defendants, giving it the opportunity to be heard. The failure to
properly implead POTC and PHILCOMSAT not only violates the latter’s legal
personality, but is repugnant on POTC's and PHILCOMSAT's right to due
process. "Failure to implead these corporations as defendants and merely
annexing a list of such corporations to the complaints is a violation of their
right to due process for it would in effect be disregarding their distinct and
separate personality without a hearing." As already settled, a suit against
individual stockholders is not a suit against the corporation.

You might also like