Republic V.

Sandiganbayan 2006

FACTS:

Case involves ill-gotten wealth that the petitioner, Republic through the Presidential commission on
Good government, filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent, Roberto S. Benedicto. PCCG, under
the mandate of Executive Order No.1 of 196, sequestrated all business enterprises and entities owned
or registered in the name of the respondent. Among those sequestered are the 227 shares in NOGCCI.

Sometime in October 1986, PCCG representatives sat as Board directors of NOGCCI, passed a resolution
regarding the monthly membership due of NOGCCI share is equivalent to 150 pesos and if an investor
buys more than one share he is exempt from the monthly membership due for the second and
subsequent share. After sometime in March 1987 it was again changed from 150 to 250 pesos for each
share. PCCG did not pay a total of 2,959,471 pesos worth of monthly membership dues and the 227
shares were declared delingquent to be disposed in an auction sale

To prevent the auction sale, PCCG filed a complaint with the RTC of Bacolod city, however the complaint
was dismissed and auction sale proceeded.

On November 3, 1990 Petitioner entered into a compromise agreement with the respondent where it
contained a general release clause where petitioner bound itself to lift the sequestration on 227 NOGCCI
and acknowledging that it was within the benedicto’s capacity to acquire the same shares out of his
income from business and exercise of his profession. Also implied in this undertaking is the recognition
of the petitioner that the shares of stock could not have been ill-gotten. Sandiganbayan approved the
agreement and rendered judgement.

Later time, Benedicto filed a motion for release from sequestration and return of sequestered shares for
its return, delivery or payment to him as part of the agreement. Sandiganbayan granted the motion but
placed the shares under the custody of its clerk of court and sometime in March 1995, Sandiganbayan
released its resolution ordering the clerk to deliver the shares of stock to respondent (150,000 per
share) (will be deducted from Petitioner republic)

PCCG failed to comply with the resolution thus respondent filed a case and a motion for compliance
followed by an ex parte motion for early resolution and sandiganbayan promulgated and given 15 days
extension to return the shares of stock to PCCG

PCCG answered and filed a manifestation with motion for reconsideration to set aside resution and
respondent filed a motion to enforce judgement. Sandiganbayan in its 2nd resolution, denied PCGG
motion and granted respondents motion.

ISSUE:

W/n Sandiganbayan, second division, gravely abused its discretion in holding that the PCGG is at fault
for not paying on the 227 sequestered shares of stock.
RULING:

Petition lacks merit. PCGG does not dispute its being as a receiver. Also PCGG acknowledges that as a
receiver its functions is to pay debts pertaining to the sequestered entity or property. But PCGG’s
contention is that the outstanding debt owning to a golf club cannot be considered. They also contend
that they claim to exercise due diligence to prevent the loss through delinquency sale. But contention
cannot tit the balance in favor of PCGG, because as far as from acting as a father, the fiscal agents allow
the element of delinquency to set in before acting by embarking on a tedious process of going to court
after the auction sale had been announced and scheduled.

Sandiganbayan cannot be faulted for finding PCGG liable for the loss of 227 shares. Fiscal agents,
standing as board of directors, agreed to the amendment rule pertaining to the membership dues thus
those agents had a direct hand in the loss of the sequestered shares through delinquency. Those loss of
shares should have not come to pass if those agents not agreed to the passage of NOGCCI.

Grave abuse of discretion of the Sandiganbayan has no cogency. Even if Sandiganbayan were wrong, it is
well settled rule of jurisprudence that certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction not errors
of judgement. Also errors in procedure or mistake of court’s findings are beyond the term “certiorari”.
Grave abuse of discretion, where abuse must be so pantent and gross as to amount to an evation of a
positive duty or refusal to perform enjoined by law where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and
despoti manner by reason of passion or hostility, is not present within the case.

Petitioner also fails in narrating the facts and fails to make a reference to the 2 resolutions of the
Sandiganbayan. In a last-ditch attempt to escape liability, PCGG invokes immunity from suit in order for
it to pay the value of the delinquent shares would fix monetary liability on a government agency thus
necessitating the appropriation of public funds to satisfy the claim. But Respondent contended that
PCGG fails to take stock of one of the exceptions to the state immunity. The state, through its agents,
takes initiative in a suit against the private party and thereby descends to the level of a private individual
and opens itself to whatever counterclaims or defenses the latter may have against it.

The fact that petitioner enters into a compromise agreement with the private respondent strips itself
from immunity from suit and placed itself same level of its adversary. When a state enters into a
contract through its agents (pursuant to the constitutional legislative authority) may be sued without its
express consent because entering a contracts means descending to a level that of citizens. Its consent to
be sued is implied from the very act of entering into a contract.

PETITION IS DISMISSED

Notes; no suit may be maintained against the state because there can be no legan right against the
authority which makes the law on which the right depends, except when it gives consent whether
express or implied.

5th class municipality mayors fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

To invoke the courts power of judicial review, it must be first shown that respondent acted without or in
excess of its or his jurisdiction and that there is no appeal or speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law