CAUNCA vs. SALAZAR PDF

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws
Jurisprudence
October 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court
Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme
Court Jurisprudence
Custom Search
Search
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year

ChanRobles On- 2007 > October 2007 Decisions > G.R. NOS.
Line Bar Review 159104-05 - RODOLFO M. CUENCA, ET AL. v. THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, ET AL.:
G.R. NOS. 159104-05 - RODOLFO M. CUENCA, ET

AL. v. THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, ET AL.
SECOND DIVISION
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Page 1 of 35
[G.R. NOS. 159104-05 : October 5, 2007]
RODOLFO M. CUENCA and CUENCA

INVESTMENT CORP., Petitioners, v. THE
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, INDEPENDENT REALTY CORP.,
and UNIVERSAL HOLDINGS CORP.,
Respondents.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45, petitioners assail the January 6, 2003 Decision 1

of the Court of Appeals (CA) in consolidated cases
CA-G.R. CV No. 60338 2 and CA-G.R. SP No.
49686 3 which upheld the jurisdiction of

Sandiganbayan over a dispute involving the transfer
of stocks and subscription rights of respondent
Universal Holdings Corporation (UHC), a
sequestered company, in favor of petitioners
Rodolfo M. Cuenca and Cuenca Investment
Corporation (CIC); and its July 15, 2003
Resolution 4 denying petitioners' Motion for
Reconsideration. 5 The consolidated cases originated

from Civil Case No. 91-2721 entitled Rodolfo M.
Cuenca, et al. v. Independent Realty Corp., et al.
filed before the Makati City Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 61--CA-G.R. CV No. 60338 being an
appeal from the April 23, 1998 Decision rendered
by the Makati City RTC, and CA-G.R. SP No. 49686

Page 2 of 35
being a special civil action formerly filed as a
Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court,
but was remanded to the CA for a review of the
denial of the motion for intervention filed by
respondent Presidential Commission on Good
Government (PCGG).
The Facts
Respondent UHC is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Independent Realty Corporation (IRC). UHC had an
authorized capital stock of PhP 200,000,000 of
which 401,995 shares worth PhP 40,199,500 were
subscribed and PhP 10,050,000 was paid up by IRC.
Five stockholders of IRC held qualifying shares in
UHC and served in its Board of Directors. UHC
became an inactive holding company until the later
months of 1978.
In 1978, petitioner Rodolfo M. Cuenca and his

family's holding company, petitioner CIC,
negotiated and reached an agreement with
respondents IRC and UHC, whereby petitioners
Cuenca and CIC would purchase all the shares of
stock and subscription rights of IRC in UHC for PhP
10,000,000 and assume IRC's unpaid subscription
of PhP 30,000,000. Petitioners Cuenca and CIC
were then the controlling stockholders of the
Construction and Development Corporation of the
Philippines (CDCP), now the Philippine National
Construction Corporation (PNCC), Sta. Ines Melale
Forest Products Corporation (Sta. Ines), and Resort
Hotels Corporation (Resort Hotels). In order to build
up UHC as his flagship company, petitioner Cuenca

Page 3 of 35
transferred to UHC the shares of stocks in CDCP,
Sta. Ines, and Resort Hotels worth PhP 67,233,405,
with UHC assuming Cuenca's various bank
obligations, some or all of which were secured by
pledges or liens on the stocks.
On October 21, 1978, petitioner Cuenca was elected

Chairperson and President of UHC at a special
stockholders' meeting in accordance with the
acquisition plan, and through UHC, Cuenca
continued to control and manage CDCP, Sta. Ines,
and Resort Hotels. Pursuant to the acquisition plan
and agreement with IRC, Cuenca and CIC
transferred their shares of stock in CDCP, Sta. Ines,
and Resort Hotels to UHC, which in turn paid PhP
10,000,000 to IRC. In addition, petitioners assumed
IRC's unpaid subscription of PhP 30,000,000 in
UHC. The only remaining matter to be accomplished
was the transfer of the stocks and subscription
rights of IRC in UHC to petitioners, but despite
demand, IRC did not comply.
In 1986, the instant controversy between

petitioners and respondent IRC was overtaken by
dramatic political events. President Marcos was
ousted in a bloodless revolution and left behind an
unbelievably large amount of funds and assets that
were sequestered by the new government of
President Aquino through PCGG. In July 1987,
because of Marcos nominee Jose Yao Campos'
sworn statement, respondent PCGG directed Santos
Luis Diego, President of IRC, to dissolve all the
boards of directors of IRC's fully-owned

Page 4 of 35
subsidiaries. A year later, it turned over IRC and its
subsidiary, UHC, to the Asset Privatization Trust
(APT) for rehabilitation, conservation, or
disposition, enabling APT to assign one share of
stock in IRC and in each of its 25 subsidiaries,
including UHC, to Paterno Bacani, Jr.
Amidst this state of affairs, petitioners filed the
October 2, 1991 Complaint 6 against IRC, UHC, APT,

and Bacani before the Makati City RTC, which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 91-2721, to compel IRC
to transfer all its stock and subscription rights in
UHC to them or order IRC and UHC to return and
re-convey to them all the assets and shares of
stock in CDCP, Sta. Ines, and Resort Hotels that
they had transferred to UHC.
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 29, 1991, respondents IRC and UHC
filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss 7 on the ground of

lack of jurisdiction, claiming that the exclusive
jurisdiction was lodged in the Sandiganbayan and
not in the RTC. Meanwhile, on December 9, 1991,
respondents IRC and UHC, represented by
respondent PCGG, filed another Motion to Dismiss 8

on the ground of litis pendentia as petitioner
Cuenca had a pending case filed by respondent
PCGG before the Sandiganbayan and docketed as
Civil Case No. 0016 entitled Republic of the
Philippines v. Rodolfo M. Cuenca, et al., which
involved respondent UHC and several other
corporations beneficially owned or controlled by

Page 5 of 35
October-2007 petitioner Cuenca for and in behalf of the Marcoses.
Jurisprudence Meanwhile, in the May 14, 1992 Order, the trial
court dismissed the Complaint against APT and
Bacani, and dropped them as defendants on
A.C. No. 7418 - October 16, 1992. 9 On March 25, 1993, the trial
ANDREA BALCE court, however, denied both motions to dismiss on
CELAJE v. ATTY. the ground that respondent PCGG was not
SANTIAGO C. impleaded in the instant case and that the
SORIANO transaction involved specific performance of a
contract entered into in 1978 before the PCGG
ADM. CASE No. came into existence.
7006 - RE :
SUSPENSION OF Consequently, on August 19, 1993, respondents
ATTY. ROGELIO Z. IRC and UHC filed their Answer with
BAGABUYO, Counterclaim. 10 Before pre-trial, petitioners sent
FORMER SENIOR their Interrogatories 11 to IRC and UHC, which were

STATE PROSECUTOR answered by IRC on July 25, 1994. 12 After
considerable time had elapsed without UHC filing its
A. C. No. 7421 - answer to the interrogatories, and unsatisfied with
Eliza V. Venterez, et IRC's answer not accomplished, duly signed, and
al v. Atty. Rodrigo R. sworn to by a competent and responsible IRC
Cosme officer as only IRC's counsel signed it, petitioners
filed on August 30, 1994 a Motion to Compel UHC
A.M. No. 01-10-
to Answer Interrogatories 13 to which the trial court
279-MCTC - REPORT
issued two related Orders, the first dated January
ON THE JUDICIAL
17, 1995 directing IRC to submit proper and
AUDIT CONDUCTED
complete answers and UHC to answer the
IN THE MUNICIPAL
interrogatories, 14 and the second dated February
CIRCUIT TRIAL
10, 1995 granting respondents IRC and UHC an
COURT, GEN. M.
extension of 15 days to file their answers to the
NATIVIDAD-
interrogatories. 15 On September 29, 1995,
LLANERA, NUEVA
cra
petitioners filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in

Page 6 of 35
ECIJA Default 16 for non-compliance with Section 5 of Rule
29, 17 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

A.M. No. 01-10-
Respondents IRC and UHC filed their respective
279-MCTC - REPORT
Answers to Interrogatories 18 on October 17, 1995
ON THE JUDICIAL
or only after the motion to declare them in default
AUDIT CONDUCTED
was filed and served. Consequently, the trial court
IN THE MUNICIPAL
issued its February 7, 1996 Order of default, which
CIRCUIT TRIAL
also granted petitioners the right to adduce their
COURT, GEN. M.
evidence ex-parte. 19 On September 9, 1996, the
NATIVIDAD-
LLANERA, NUEVA trial court likewise denied 20 the Motion for
ECIJA Reconsideration and/or Lift Order of Default 21 filed

by respondents IRC and UHC.
A.M. No. 05-3-83-
Subsequently, respondent PCGG filed its Motion for
MTC - RE: REPORT
Leave to Intervene with Motion to Dismiss on
ON THE JUDICIAL
December 18, 1996, which was denied by the trial
AND FINANCIAL
court only on April 20, 1998. 22 Parenthetically, on
AUDIT CONDUCTED
cra
IN THE MUNICIPAL October 22, 1996, petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-
TRIAL COURTS OF Parte Application for Receivership which was
BAYOMBONG AND granted through an October 28, 1996 Order,
SOLANO AND THE appointing Jaime C. Laya as UHC's receiver. After
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT posting the requisite bond, the trial court issued on
TRIAL COURT, November 5, 1996 an Order approving the bond,
ARITAO-STA. FE, and receiver Laya submitted his November 13,
ALL IN NUEVA 1996 Oath of Office.
VIZCAYA
Petitioners adduced their evidence and presented
the testimonies of petitioner Rodolfo Cuenca and
A.M. NO. 06-11-
Lourdes G. Labao, a supervisor of Caval Securities
5-SC : October 2,
Registry, Inc., who testified on the transfers of
2007 - RULE ON
shares of stock of CDCP, Sta. Ines, and Resort
DNA EVIDENCE
Hotels from Cuenca and CIC to UHC. On March 20,

Page 7 of 35
1998, petitioners filed their Formal Offer of
A.M. No. 05-3-83- Exhibits. 23 On April 23, 1998, the trial court
cra
MTC - RE: REPORT

rendered a Decision in favor of petitioners. The fallo
ON THE JUDICIAL
reads:
AND FINANCIAL
AUDIT CONDUCTED Accordingly, JUDGMENT is hereby
IN THE MUNICIPAL rendered in favor of plaintiffs and as
TRIAL COURTS OF against defendants IRC and UHC, who
BAYOMBONG AND are hereby ordered to immediately
SOLANO AND THE return and reconvey to plaintiffs all of
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT the shares of stocks and stock
TRIAL COURT, subscriptions in Philippine National
ARITAO-STA. FE, Construction Corporation (formerly
ALL IN NUEVA known as Construction and Development
VIZCAYA [Corporation] of the Philippines), Resort
Hotels Corporation and Sta. Ines Melale
Adm. Matter No. Forest Products Corporation, including
06-7-414-RTC - Re: those transferred by plaintiffs to UHC
Final report on the such as the 24,780,746 shares in
Judicial Audit CDCP/PNCC, the 468,062 shares in
conducted at the Resort Hotels Corporation and the
RTC Br. 67, Paniqui, 23,748,932 shares in Sta. Ines Melale
Tarlac Forest Products Corporation plus all
fruits thereof such as stock and cash
A.M. No. 06-6- dividends and stock splits.
340-RTC - Re:
The plaintiffs' prayer for damages and
Report on the
attorney's fees are hereby DENIED.
Judicial audit
conducted in the The counterclaim of defendants UHC and
RTC Br 4, Dolores, IRC for damages and attorney's fees is
Samar hereby DENIED for lack of evidence.
The appointment of JAIME C. LAYA as

Page 8 of 35
A. M. No. 07-8- Receiver of defendant UHC is hereby
27-SC - Re: MAINTAINED until finality of this
computation of Decision and full execution of this
longevity pay upon Decision or full compliance herewith by
compulsory defendants. 24
retirement
From the adverse Decision, respondents IRC and
A.M. No. 2006- UHC appealed to the CA, which was docketed as
02-SC - ALEXANDER CA-G.R. CV No. 60338. On the other hand, after the
D.J. LORENZO v. trial court denied respondent PCGG's Motion for
ORLANDO and Reconsideration 25 through its July 22, 1998

DOLORES LOPEZ Order, 26 PCGG brought the instant case before this
Court in G.R. No. 13516. Said PCGG special civil
A.M. No. MTJ-03- action was remanded to the CA and docketed as
1472 Formerly A.M. CA-G.R. SP No. 49686 entitled Presidential
No. 02-10-271-MTC Commission on Good Government (PCGG) v. Hon.
- OCA v. Judge Fernando V. Gorospe, as Presiding Judge RTC of
Zenaida L. Galvez, Makati City, Branch 61, et al. In the petition before
et al. the CA, PCGG also assailed the April 20, 1998 Order
of the trial court denying its motion for intervention
A.M. No. MTJ-05- in Civil Case No. 91-2721. Thus, the Petition for
1616 Formerly OCA Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 49686) and the appeal
IPI No. 05-1781- (CA-G.R. CV No. 60338) were consolidated.
MTJ - Mary Jane V
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Allentos Jamin v.
Judge Manuel A. De Through its assailed Decision, the appellate court
Castro, etc. reversed the Makati City RTC's Decision, granted
the petition filed by PCGG, and dismissed the
A.M. No. P-06- instant case for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate
2197 Formerly A.M. court ratiocinated that the Sandiganbayan had
No. OCA I.P.I. 05- exclusive jurisdiction to hear the instant case
2254-P - PAG-IBIG involving petitioners and the sequestered

Page 9 of 35
FUND v. MANUEL L. respondents corporations. It held that the recourse
ARIMADO of parties, petitioners in the instant case, who wish
to challenge respondent PCGG's acts or orders,
A.M. No. P-99- would be to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to
1348 Formerly OCA Executive Order No. (EO) 14 issued on May, 7,
I.P.I No. 99-696-P - 1986, 27 which ordained that this body alone had
JUDGE GLORIA B. the original jurisdiction over all of respondent
AGLUGUB v. IMELDA
PCGG's cases, civil or criminal, citing PCGG v. Pe 28
S. PERLEZ
as authority. The appellate court applied Republic v.
Sandiganbayan 29 on the issue of sequestration by

A.M. No. P-04-
respondent PCGG of UHC, CIC, and CDCP (now
1815 Formerly OCA
PNCC) against petitioner Cuenca, the Marcos
IPI No. 04-1885-P -
spouses, their relatives, friends, and colleagues.
R.B. Filoteo v.
Arturo C. Calago The CA applied the doctrine of conclusiveness of
etc. judgment that any rule which had already been
authoritatively established in a previous litigation
A.M. No. P-05- should be deemed the law of the case between the
1977 - Lydia L. same parties. As such, the appellate court adopted
Faelden v. Carina the ruling in Republic on the continuing force of the
Divinagracia Lagura order of sequestration and concluded that, indeed,
respondent UHC is a sequestered company. The CA
A.M. No. P-06- did not find merit in petitioners' contention that
2197 Formerly A.M. sequestration did not affect their transaction with
No. OCA I.P.I. 05- respondents as it arose before PCGG was created.
2254-P - PAG-IBIG
Even if petitioners had initially a cause of action,
FUND v. MANUEL L.
the CA ruled that the complaint was certainly
ARIMADO
affected by the passage of the law charging
respondent PCGG with the performance of certain
A.M. No. P-99-
tasks over the subject matter of the action; and
1348 Formerly OCA
that the same subject matter had become subject
I.P.I No. 99-696-P -
to the new exclusive jurisdiction vested in the

Page 10 of 35
JUDGE GLORIA B. Sandiganbayan at the time petitioners filed the
AGLUGUB v. IMELDA instant case.
S. PERLEZ
Aggrieved, petitioners filed their Motion for
Reconsideration 30 which was denied by the assailed

A.M. No. RTJ-06-
2030 Formerly OCA July 15, 2003 CA Resolution. 31 Hence, they filed
IPI No. 05-2166-RTJ this Petition for Review .
and A.M. NO. RTJ-

The Issues
07-2032 : October
5, 2007 Formerly Petitioners raise the following grounds for our
OCA IPI No. 05- consideration:
2167-RTJ- OFFICE
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
OF THE COURT
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING
ADMINISTRATOR v.
CIVIL CASE NO. 91-2721 BELOW ON
JUDGE AUGUSTINE
THE GROUND THAT THE
A. VESTIL
SANDIGANBAYAN HAS EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT
A.M. No. RTJ-06-
MATTER OF THE CASE.
2018 Formerly Adm.
Matter OCA-IPI No. A.
05-2360-RTJ -
THE FACT ALONE THAT
OFFICE OF THE
RESPONDENT UHC MAY HAVE
SOLICITOR
BEEN SEQUESTERED DID
GENERAL v. JUDGE
NOT DIVEST THE REGIONAL
ANTONIO I. DE
TRIAL COURT OF ITS
CASTRO
JURISDICTION OVER THE
SUBJECT MATTER OF
A.M. No. RTJ-07-
PETITIONERS' COMPLAINT IN
2075 Formerly OCA
CIVIL CASE NO. 91-2721
I.P.I. No. 07-2623-
BELOW.
RTJ - ATTY.
UBALDINO A. B.

Page 11 of 35
LACUROM v. .JUDGE THE COURT OF APPEALS'
JUANITA C. TIENZO RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF
REPUBLIC VS.
A.M. No. RTJ-06- SANDIGANBAYAN, 240 SCRA
1971 - QBE 376 (1995), IS MISPLACED.
Insurance Phils.,
C.
Jnc., et al. v. Judge
Celso D. Lavina etc. THE COURT OF APPEALS'
APPLICATION OF THE
A.M. No. RTJ-06- DOCTRINE OF
2004 Formerly OCA CONCLUSIVENESS OF
I.P.I. No. 04-2145- JUDGMENT IS
RTJ - Doroteo M.
ERRONEOUS. 32
Salazar v. Judge
Antonio D. The Court's Ruling
Marigomen.
The petition must fail.
A.M. No. RTJ-06- The core issue before us is that of jurisdiction. In

2018 Formerly Adm. gist, petitioners argue that UHC was not
Matter OCA-IPI No. sequestered, and even if it was sequestered, the
05-2360-RTJ - trial court still has the jurisdiction to hear the case
OFFICE OF THE for rescission of contract or specific performance,
SOLICITOR and conclude that the doctrine of conclusiveness of
GENERAL v. JUDGE judgment does not apply in the instant case.
ANTONIO I. DE
Issue of Jurisdiction
CASTRO
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of
A.M. No. RTJ-06- a court to hear, try, and decide a case. 33
2030 Formerly OCA Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
IPI No. 05-2166-RTJ the Constitution or by law while jurisdiction over the
and A.M. NO. RTJ- person is acquired by his/her voluntary submission
07-2032 : October to the authority of the court or through the exercise

Page 12 of 35
5, 2007 Formerly of its coercive processes. Jurisdiction over the res is
OCA IPI No. 05- obtained by actual or constructive seizure placing
2167-RTJ - OFFICE the property under the orders of the court. 34 We cra
OF THE COURT
are primarily concerned here with the first kind of
ADMINISTRATOR v.
jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction over the subject
JUDGE AUGUSTINE
matter.
A. VESTIL
Petitioners contend that even if UHC was indeed
A.M. No. RTJ-07- sequestered, jurisdiction over the subject matter of
2038 Formerly A.M. petitioners' Complaint for enforcement or rescission
OCA IPI No. 05- of contract between petitioners and respondents
2250-RTJ - Attys. belonged to the RTC and not the Sandiganbayan.
Rowena V. Guanzon, Petitioners cited Philippine Amusement and Gaming
et al. v. Judge Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 35 involving
Anastacio C. Rufon Philippine Casino Operators Corporation (PCOC)
Br 52, Bacolod City which was sequestered on March 19, 1986. In said
case, this Court held that the fact of sequestration
A.M. No. SCC-05- alone did not automatically oust the RTC of
10-P Formerly OCA jurisdiction to decide upon the question of
IPI No. 03-18-SCC - ownership of the disputed gaming and office
Andy Balalat v. KYD equipment as PCGG must be a party to the suit in
Abdulwahid I. Adil order that the Sandiganbayan's exclusive
etc. jurisdiction may be correctly invoked, and as
Section 2 36 of EO 14 was duly applied in PCGG v.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-
Pe 37 and PCGG v. Nepomuceno, 38 which
2075 Formerly OCA
ineluctably spoke of respondent PCGG as a party-
I.P.I. No. 07-2623-
litigant.
RTJ - ATTY.
UBALDINO A. Likewise, petitioners cited Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc.
LACUROM vs.JUDGE v. Sandiganbayan, 39 which also involved a
JUANITA C. TIENZO sequestered company, New Riviera Hotel and
Development Co., Inc. (NRHDCI), where this Court

Page 13 of 35
G.R. No. 121666 - held that there is a distinction between an action for
Commissioner of the recovery of ill-gotten wealth, as well as all
Internal Revenue v. incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to
Manila Electric such cases, and cases filed by those who wish to
Company question or challenge respondent PCGG's acts or
orders in such cases vis-vis ordinary civil cases that
G.R. No. 110478, do not pertain to the Sandiganbayan. As such,
G.R. No. 116176 petitioners contend that the instant ordinary civil
and G.R. NOS. case for the enforcement or rescission of the 1978
116491-503 - contract between petitioners and respondents UHC
Fermin Manapat v. and IRC is distinct from and has absolutely no
Court of Appeals, et bearing with the unrelated issue of the
al / Domingo Lim v. sequestration of respondents UHC and IRC. Thus,
Court of Appeals, et petitioners strongly contend that the trial court
al./ G.R. 116491- indeed had jurisdiction over the instant case.
503 (National Besides, petitioners point out that PCGG was not
Housing Authority v. impleaded as a defendant in Civil Case No. 91-
Maximo Loberanes, 2721, and that the Complaint "does not question
et al.). the PCGG's alleged sequestration of respondent
UHC x x x or any other act or order of the PCGG." 40

G.R. No. 130864 - Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over
cra
MARIA L. HAROLD v.
the instant case
AGAPITO T. ALIBA
A rigorous examination of the antecedent facts and
G.R. NOS. existing records at hand shows that Sandiganbayan
135688-89 - has exclusive jurisdiction over the instant case.
Ernesto B.
Thus, the petition must fail for the following
Francisco, Jr. v.
reasons:
Uem-Mara Phil.
cra:nad
Corp., et al. First, it is a fact that the shares of stock of UHC and
CDCP, the subject matter of Civil Case No. 91-2721
G.R. No. 137321 - before the Makati City RTC, were also the subject

Page 14 of 35
Phil. Asso. of Srock matter of an ill-gotten wealth case, specifically Civil
Transfer & Registry Case No. 0016 before the Sandiganbayan. In Civil
Agencies Inc. v. The Case No. 91-2721 of the Makati City RTC,
Hon. Court of petitioners prayed for a judgment either
Appeals, et al. transferring the UHC shares or restoring and
reconveying the PNCC shares to them. In the event
G.R. No. 140240 - a final judgment is rendered in said Makati City RTC
Rodolfo S. De Jesus, case in favor of petitioners, then such adjudication
et al. v. Office of the tends to render moot and academic the judgment
Ombudsman, et al. to be rendered in Sandiganbayan Civil Case No.
0016 considering that the legal ownership of either
G.R. No. 141166- the UHC or PNCC shares would now be transferred
67 - Ronilo Olvido, to petitioners Rodolfo Cuenca and CIC. Such
et al. v. Court of adverse judgment would run counter to the rights
Appeals, et al. of ownership of the government over the UHC and
PNCC shares in question. It must be remembered
G.R. No. 141408 that on March 21, 1986, a Sworn Statement 41
and G.R. NO. executed by Mr. Jose Y. Campos in Vancouver,
141429 - Canada, whereby Mr. Campos, a crony and close
Metropolitan Bank & business associate of the deposed President Marcos,
Trust Co. v. Phil named and identified IRC and UHC (a wholly-owned
Bank of subsidiary of IRC) as among the several
Communications, et corporations organized, established, and managed
al/ Solid Bank Corp. by him and other business associates for and in
v. Filipinas Orient behalf of the former President Marcos.
Finance Corp., et al. Subsequently, the UHC and IRC shares were
surrendered and turned over by Mr. Campos to
G.R. No. 143331 - PCGG, transferring, in effect, the ownership of the
FIVE STAR shares to the Government.
MARKETING CO.,
Moreover, inasmuch as UHC was impleaded in Civil
INC. v. JAMES L.
Case No. 0016 as a defendant and was listed
BOOC
among the corporations beneficially owned or

Page 15 of 35
controlled by petitioner Cuenca, the issue of the
G.R. No. 145587 - latter's right to acquire ownership of UHC shares is
EDI- inexorably intertwined with the right of the Republic
STAFFBUILDERS of the Philippines, through PCGG, to retain
INTERNATIONAL, ownership of said UHC shares.
INC. v. NATIONAL
It must be borne in mind that the Sandiganbayan
LABOR RELATIONS
was created in 1978 pursuant to Presidential Decree
COMMISSION, ET
No. (PD) 1606. 42 Said law has been amended
AL.
during the interim period after the Edsa Revolution
of 1986 and before the 1987 Constitution was
G.R. No. 146296 -
drafted, passed, and ratified. Thus, the executive
Eduardo Gulmatico
issuances during such period before the ratification
Y Brigatay v. People
of the 1987 Constitution had the force and effect of
of the Philippines
laws. Specifically, then President Corazon C. Aquino
issued the following Executive Orders which
G.R. No. 146214 -
amended PD 1606 in so far as the jurisdiction of the
RODOLFO M.
Sandiganbayan over civil and criminal cases
CUENCA v. HON.
instituted and prosecuted by the PCGG is
ALBERTO P. ATAS,
concerned, viz:
ET AL.
cra:nad
a) EO 1, entitled "Creating the Presidential

G.R. No. 148044 -
Commission on Good Government," dated February
ANTONIO
28, 1986;
MASAQUEL, ET AL.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
v. JAIME ORIAL b) EO 2, entitled "Regarding the Funds, Moneys,

Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired or
G.R. No. 147923, Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand E.
G.R. NO. 147962 Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos, Their Close
and G.R. NO. Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates,
154035 - JIMMY T. Dummies, Agents, or Nominees," dated March 12,
GO v. ALBERTO T. 1986; chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
LOOYUKO

Page 16 of 35
c) EO 14, entitled "Defining the Jurisdiction over
G.R. No. 149136 - Cases Involving the Ill-gotten Wealth of Former
Juan Endozo, et al. President Ferdinand E. Marcos, Mrs. Imelda R.
v. The Heirs of Julia Marcos, Members of their Immediate Family, Close
Buck Relatives, Subordinates, Close and/or Business
Associates, Dummies, Agents and Nominees," dated
G.R. No. 148777 May 7, 1986; and cralawlibrary
and G.R. NO.

157598 - Estate of d) EO 14-A, entitled "Amending Executive Order No.
the Late 14," dated August 18, 1986.
Encarnacion Vda De
Bearing on the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
Panlilio etc. v.
over cases of ill-gotten wealth, EO 14, Secs. 1 and
Gonzalo Dizon, et
2 provide:
al/Reynaldo
Villanueva, et al. v. SECTION 1. Any provision of the law to
Court of Appeals, et the contrary notwithstanding, the
al. Presidential Commission on Good
Government with the assistance of the
G.R. No. 149508 - Office of the Solicitor General and other
Sps. Ricardo Delos government agencies, is hereby
Santos, et al. v. Ma. empowered to file and prosecute all
Socorro V. Vda De cases investigated by it under
Mangubat, et al. Executive Order No. 1, dated
February 28, 1986 and Executive
G.R. No. 149640 - Order No. 2, dated March 12, 1986,
San Miguel Corp., et as may be warranted by its findings.
al. v. Numeriano La
SECTION 2. The Presidential
Yoc, Jr., et al.
Commission on Good Government
shall file all such cases, whether
G.R. No. 149681 -
civil or criminal, with the
Rommel Monares
Sandiganbayan, which shall have
Anilao v. The People
exclusive and original jurisdiction

Page 17 of 35
of the Philippines thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
Notably, these amendments had been duly

G.R. No. 149909 -
recognized and reflected in subsequent
TERESA GABRIEL,
amendments to PD 1606, specifically Republic Act
ET AL. v. HON.
Nos. 7975 43 and 8249. 44 In the light of the
COURT OF APPEALS,
cra
ET AL. foregoing provisions, it is clear that it is the

Sandiganbayan and not the Makati City RTC that
G.R. No. 150134 - has jurisdiction over the disputed UHC and PNCC
ERNESTO C. DEL shares, being the alleged "ill-gotten wealth" of
ROSARIO, ET AL. v. former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and petitioner
FAR EAST BANK & Cuenca. The fact that the Makati City RTC civil case
TRUST COMPANY, ET involved the performance of contractual obligations
AL. relative to the UHC shares is of no importance. The
benchmark is whether said UHC shares are alleged
G.R. No. 150301 - to be ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their
PHILIPPINE perceived cronies. More importantly, the interests of
FISHERIES orderly administration of justice dictate that all
DEVELOPMENT incidents affecting the UHC shares and PCGG's right
AUTHORITY v. THE of supervision or control over the UHC must be
HONORABLE COURT addressed to and resolved by the Sandiganbayan.
OF APPEALS, ET AL. Indeed, the law and courts frown upon split
jurisdiction and the resultant multiplicity of suits,
G.R. No. 151797 - which result in much lost time, wasted effort, more
SPOUSES MANUEL expenses, and irreparable injury to the public
MEJORADA, ET AL. interest.
v. GLORIFICACION
Second, the UHC shares in dispute were
VERTUDAZO, ET AL.
sequestered by respondent PCGG. Sequestration is
a provisional remedy or freeze order issued by the
G.R. No. 151910 -
PCGG designed to prevent the disposal and
Republic of the Phil.
dissipation of ill-gotten wealth. 45 The power to
v. Ludolfo V. Munoz
sequester property means to

Page 18 of 35
place or cause to be placed under
G.R. No. 152572 - [PCGG's] possession or control said
SPOUSES property, or any building or office
ABELARDO BORBE, wherein any such property or any
ET AL. v. VIOLETA records pertaining thereto may be
CALALO found, including business enterprises
and entities, for the purpose of
G.R. No. 152672 - preventing the destruction of, and
JIMMY T. GO v. otherwise conserving and preserving the
HON. ZEUS same, until it can be determined,
ABROGAR, ET AL. through appropriate judicial
proceedings, whether the property was
G.R. No. 153051 - in truth ill-gotten. (Silverio v. PCGG, 155
PCGG v. SCRA 60 [1987]). 46
Sandiganbayan, et
al. Considering that the UHC shares were already
sequestered, enabling the PCGG to exercise the
G.R. No. 153898 - power of supervision, possession, and control over
Mr. Wee Sion Ben, said shares, then such power would collide with the
et al v. legal custody of the Makati City RTC over the UHC
Semexco/Zest-O shares subject of Civil Case No. 91-2721. Whatever
Marketing Corp. etc. the outcome of Civil Case No. 91-2721, whether
from enforcement or rescission of the contract,
G.R. No. 154242 - would directly militate on PCGG's control and
Victorina A. Cruz v. management of IRC and UHC, and consequently
Hon. Salvador hamper or interfere with its mandate to recover ill-
Enriquez etc. gotten wealth. As aptly pointed out by respondents,

petitioners' action is inexorably entwined with the
G.R. No. 154338 - Government's action for the recovery of ill-gotten
UNIVERSAL ROBINA wealth--the subject of the pending case before the
CORPORATION v. Sandiganbayan. Verily, the transfer of shares of
ALBERT LIM stock of UHC to petitioners or the return of the

shares of stock of CDCP (now PNCC) will wreak

Page 19 of 35
havoc on the sequestration case as both UHC and
G.R. No. 154339 - CDCP are subject of sequestration by PCGG.
Romualdo Anselmo
Third, Philippine Amusement and Gaming
etc. v. Sps. William
Corporation and Holiday Inn (Phils.), Inc. 47 are not
Hernandez &
analogous to the case at bar. The first dealt with
Rosemarie
ownership of gaming and office equipment, which is
Hernandez
distinct from and will not impact on the
sequestration issue of PCOC. The second dealt with
G.R. No. 155056-
an ordinary civil case for performance of a
57 - The Heirs of the
contractual obligation which did not in any way
Late Panfilo v.
affect the sequestration proceeding of NRHDCI;
Pajarillo
thus, the complaint-in-intervention of Holiday Inn
(Phils.), Inc. was properly denied for lack of
G.R. No. 155952 -
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
JUANITO A. RUBIO
v. PIO L. MUNAR,
In both cases cited by petitioners, there was a
JR.
substantial distinction between the sequestration
proceedings and the subject matter of the actions.
G.R. No. 156023 -
This does not prevail in the instant case, as the
GSIS v. Victoriousa
ownership of the shares of stock of the sequestered
B. Vallar
companies, UHC and CDCP, is the subject matter of
a pending case and thus addressed to the exclusive
G.R. No. 156848 -
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
PIONEER
INTERNATIONAL, Sec. 2 of EO 14 pertinently provides: "The
LTD. v. HON. Presidential Commission on Good Government shall
TEOFILO GUADIZ, file all such cases, whether civil or criminal, with the
JR., ET AL. Sandiganbayan, which shall have exclusive and

original jurisdiction thereof."
G.R. No. 157186 -

The above proviso has been squarely applied in
Active Realty &
Pe, 48 where this Court held that the exclusive
Devt. Corp. v.
jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would

Page 20 of 35
Bienvenido evidently extend not only to the principal causes of
Fernandez. action, that is, recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth,
but also to all incidents arising from, incidental to,
G.R. No. 157376 - or related to such cases, including a dispute over
CORAZON C. SIM v. the sale of the shares, the propriety of the issuance
NATIONAL LABOR of ancillary writs of relative provisional remedies,
RELATIONS and the sequestration of the shares, which may not
COMMISSION, ET be made the subject of separate actions or
AL. proceedings in another forum. Indeed, the issue of
the ownership of the sequestered companies, UHC
G.R. No. 157610 - and PNCC, as well as IRC's ownership of them, is
Orlando G. Tongol v. undeniably related to the recovery of the alleged ill-
Filipinas M. Tongol gotten wealth and can be squarely addressed via
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
G.R. No. 157647 -
Fourth, while it is clear that the exclusive
GSIS v. National
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan only encompasses
Labor Relations
cases where PCGG is impleaded, such requirement
Commission, et al.
is satisfied in the instant case. The appellate court
clearly granted PCGG's Petition for Certiorari in CA-
G.R. No. 157658 -
G.R. SP No. 49686, assailing the trial court's denial
Phil. National
of its Motion for Leave to Intervene with Motion to
Railways, et al. v.
Dismiss. Thus, the trial court's April 20, 1998 Order
Court of Appeals, et
was reversed and set aside by the appellate court
al.
through its assailed Decision. Consequently, PCGG
was granted the right to intervene and thus became
G.R. No. 157673 -
properly impleaded in the instant case. Without
Rolando Angeles, et
doubt, the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear and
al. v. Polytex Design
decide Civil Case No. 91-2721.
Inc., et al.
Respondent UHC duly sequestered by PCGG
G.R. No. 157833 -
The trial court ruled that respondent PCGG could
BPI v. Gregorio C.
not stop the transfer of the shares of respondent

Page 21 of 35
Roxas UHC in CDCP to petitioners as there was no proof of
sequestration except a writ of sequestration of
G.R. No. 157775 - Cuenca's stocks in CDCP. On the other hand,
Leyte IV Electric petitioners contend that the appellate court's
Cooperative Inc. v. reliance on Republic 49 is misplaced. They point out
LEYTECO IV that neither PCGG nor respondent corporations
Employees Union- relied on said case. Besides, petitioners contend
Alu that the Court's statements in said case did not
constitute a ruling but mere references to unproven
G.R. No. 158175 - allegations by PCGG in its complaint against Cuenca
PNB v. in Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0016; and as such,
Commissioner of it cannot be relied upon to hold that UHC was a
Internal Revenue sequestered corporation. As it is, petitioners
conclude that it was a mere obiter dictum which
G.R. No. 157903 - was not essential to the disposition of the aforecited
LAND BANK OF THE case and thus, it is not binding upon the parties for
PHILIPPINES v. purposes of res judicata or conclusiveness of
FEDERICO C. judgment.
SUNTAY
We are not moved by petitioners' submission.
G.R. NOS.
While it may be true that in Republic, our statement
159104-05 -
on Civil Case No. 0016, as cited by PCGG, refers to
RODOLFO M.
the allegations in the complaint filed by PCGG
CUENCA, ET AL. v.
against petitioner Cuenca, 50 we nonetheless stated
THE PRESIDENTIAL
in said case the fact of the sequestration of the
COMMISSION ON
assets and records of Rodolfo Cuenca, UHC, CIC,
GOOD
CDCP, San Mariano Mining Corp., etc. on May 23,
GOVERNMENT, ET
1986 and July 23, 1987. We took factual notice of
AL.
the sequestration of various companies and
properties in said case, thus:a
G.R. NOS. 158786
and 158789 - Toyota III. Orders of Sequestration issued by

Page 22 of 35
Motor Phils. Corp. PCGG
Workers Asso., et al.
During 1986 and 1987 numerous orders
v. National Labor
of sequestration, freezing or provisional
Relations
takeover of companies or properties,
Commission, et al. -
real or personal, were issued and
G.R. NOS. 158798-
implemented. Among those were the
99 Toyota Motor
orders handed out against the firms or
Phil. Corp. v. Toyota
assets hereunder listed, with the dates
Motor Phil. Corp.
of sequestration, freezing or take-over,
Workers Asso.
to wit: cra:nad
G.R. NOS.
SUBJECTS/OBJECTS OF
159104-05 -
SEQUESTRATION DATE
RODOLFO M.
CUENCA, ET AL. v. xxx
THE PRESIDENTIAL
i. Assets and records of Rodolfo Cuenca,
COMMISSION ON
May 23, 1986,
GOOD
Universal Holdings Corp., Cuenca July
GOVERNMENT, ET
23, 1987
AL.
Investment Corporation, Philippine
National Construction Corp. (formerly
G.R. No. 159641 -
CDCP), San Mariano Mining Corp., etc. 51
Caltex (Phils.), Inc.
etc v. National Labor From the foregoing account, we concluded that UHC
Relations had indeed been sequestered by the PCGG in 1986
Commission, et al. and 1987. Consequently, the appellate court
properly applied Republic as basis for its finding
G.R. No. 160325 - that UHC was a sequestered company. Since the
ROQUE S. DUTERTE issue of sequestration has been resolved, we see no
v. KINGSWOOD need to delve into the issue of conclusiveness of
TRADING CO., INC., judgment. Suffice it to say that with the
ET AL. unequivocal finding that UHC was indeed

Page 23 of 35
sequestered, then it is the Sandiganbayan, not the
G.R. No. 161479 - Makati City RTC, that has exclusive jurisdiction over
Adoracion Redodo v. the subject matter of Civil Case No. 91-2721.
Angelina Jimenez
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED
for lack of merit. The January 6, 2003 Decision and
G.R. No. 161657 -
July 15, 2003 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV
Republic of the Phil.
No. 60338 and CA-G.R. SP No. 49686 are
v. Hon. Vicente A.
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.
Hidalgo, et al.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 162124 -
Carpio Morales,Acting Chairperson, Tinga,
Polomolok Water
Puno, Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
District v. Polomolok
General Consumers
Asso., Inc.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 163775 -

Oscar G. Sapitan, et * As per September 3, 2007 raffle. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
al. v. Jb Linebicol
Express Inc., et al. 1 Rollo, pp. 72-83. The Decision was
penned by Associate Justice Mario L.

G.R. No. 163147 - Guari III and concurred in by Associate
Linton Commercial Justices Godardo A. Jacinto
Co. Inc., et al. v. (Chairperson) and Martin S. Villarama,
Alex A. Hellera, et Jr. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
al.
2 Rodolfo M. Cuenca and Cuenca
G.R. No. 164036 - Investment Corp. v. Independent Realty
SPOUSES Corp. and Universal Holdings Corp. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
SANTIAGO and MA.

3 Presidential Commission on Good
CONSUELO CARLOS
v. THE COURT OF Government (PCGG) v. Hon. Fernando V.
Gorospe, as Presiding Judge, RTC of

Page 24 of 35
APPEALS, ET AL. Makati City, Branch 61, et al. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
4 Rollo, pp. 84-85.

G.R. No. 164166 chanroblesvirtualawlibary
& 164173-80 -
5 Id. at 394-406.
Rodolfo S. De Jesus chanroblesvirtualawlibary
v. Hon.
6 Id. at 86-99.
Sandiganbayan, et chanroblesvirtualawlibary
al.
7 Id. at 108-117. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. NOS.
8 Id. at 118-121.
164311-12 - Laarni
chanroblesvirtualawlibary
N. Valerio v. Court
9 Id. at 35.
of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 164904 -

Jose Antonio U. 11 Id. at 139-142 (UHC) & 143-145
Gonzalez v.
(IRC). chanroblesvirtualawlibary
Hongkong &
Shanghail Banking 12 Id. at 146-149. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
Corp. etc.
G.R. No. 165855 -

HARISH RAMNANI, 14 Id. at 153. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
ET AL. v. QBE
INSURANCE 15 Id. at 154. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
PHILIPPINES, INC.
G.R. No. 166913 -

17 SEC. 5. Failure of party to attend or
SPS. MARIANO S.
TANGLAO, ET AL. v. serve answers.--If a party or an officer
SPS. CORAZON S. or managing agent of a party willfully
PARUNGAO, ET AL. fails to appear before the officer who is

to take his deposition, after being served

Page 25 of 35
with a proper notice, or fails to answer
G.R. No. 168122 - to interrogatories submitted under Rule
ROMONAFE 25 after proper service of such
CORPORATION v. interrogatories, the court on motion and
NATIONAL POWER notice, may strike out all or any part of
CORPORATION any pleading of that party, or dismiss
the action or proceeding or any part
G.R. No. 168569 - thereof, or enter a judgment by default
SAN MIGUEL against that party, and in its discretion,
FOODS, INC. v. SAN order him to pay reasonable expenses
MIGUEL incurred by the other, including
CORPORATION attorney's fees (emphasis supplied). chanroblesvirtualawlibary
EMPLOYEES UNION-
18 Rollo, pp. 161-164 & 165-168,
PTWGO
respectively. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 168584 -

19 Id. at 169-170.
REPUBLIC OF THE chanroblesvirtualawlibary
PHILIPPINES, ET AL.
20 Id. at 192.
v. HON. RAMON S. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
CAGUIOA, ET AL.
G.R. No. 168650 -

22 Id. at 300-302.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
23 Id. at 201-212.
JOSE TUAZON
24 Id. at 309; per Judge Fernando V.

G.R. No. 168661 -
Gorospe, Jr. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
Estate of the Late

Jesus S. Yujuico etc. 25 Id. at 310-312. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
v. Republic of the
Philippines 26 Id. at 313. chanroblesvirtualawlibary

Page 26 of 35
G.R. No. 168747 - 27 "Defining the Jurisdiction over Cases
Victoria Regner v. Involving the Ill-Gotten Wealth of

Cynthia R. Logarta, Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos,
et al. Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, Members of
Their Immediate Family, Close Relatives,
G.R. No. 169656 - Subordinates, Close and/or Business
FELSAN REALTY & Associates, Dummies, Agents and
DEVELOPMENT Nominees." chanroblesvirtualawlibary
CORPORATION v.
COMMONWEALTH 28 G.R. No. L-77663, April 12, 1988,
OF AUSTRALIA 159 SCRA 556. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 170075 - 29 G.R. NOS. 96073, 104065, 104167,
DYNO NOBEL 104168, 104679, 104850, 104883,

PHILIPPINES, INC. 105170, 105205, 105206, 105711-12,
v. DWPI 105808, 105809, 105850, 106176,
SUPERVISORY 106765, 107233, 107908, 109314, &
UNION 109592, January 23, 1995, 240 SCRA
376. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 170785 -

30 Rollo, pp. 394-406.
REPUBLIC chanroblesvirtualawlibary
PLANTERS BANK, ET
31 Supra note 4.
AL. v. VIVENCIO T. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
SARMIENTO, ET AL.
32 Rollo, p. 45. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 170853 -

33 Zamora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
Sps. Vilma Disquit
78206, March 19, 1990, 183 SCRA 279,
Ado etc. v. Jesus
283; citations omitted.
Cornelia
34 Id. at 284; citing Banco Espal Filipino

G.R. No. 170633 -
v. Palanca, 37 Phil. 921 (1918).
MCC INDUSTRIAL

Page 27 of 35
SALES 35 G.R. No. 108838, July 14, 1997, 275
CORPORATION v. SCRA 433. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
SSANGYONG
CORPORATION 36 SEC. 2. The Presidential Commission
on Good Government shall file all such

G.R. No. 171053 - cases, whether civil or criminal, with the
Sehwani Inc. etc. v. Sandiganbayan, which shall have
In-N-Out Burger exclusive and original jurisdiction
Inc. thereof. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 171304 - 37 Supra note 28. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
IN THE MATTER OF
38 G.R. No. 78750, April 20, 1990, 184
REVERSION/RECALL
OF RECONSTITUTED SCRA 449. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
OCT NO. 0-116

39 G.R. No. 85576, June 8, 1990, 186
ETC., ET AL. v.
REGISTRY OF SCRA 447. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
DEEDS-TARLAC
40 Rollo, pp. 57-58.
CITY, ET AL. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
41 Id. at 421-428.
G.R. No. 171336 -
POLYSTYRENE
42 "Revising Presidential Decree No.
MANUFACTURING
1486 Creating a Special Court to be
COMPANY, INC. v.
Known as 'Sandiganbayan' and for other
PRIVATIZATION AND
Purposes," (1978).
MANAGEMENT
OFFICE
43 "An Act Strengthening the Functional
and Structural Organization of the

G.R. No. 171346 -
Sandiganbayan, Amending for that
Jaime Sanchez, Jr. v.
Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606,
Zenaida F. Marin, et
as Amended," (1995).
al.

Page 28 of 35
44 "An Act Further Defining the
G.R. No. 171437 - Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan,
HERMES E. FRIAS, Amending for the Purpose Presidential
SR. v. PEOPLE OF Decree No. 1606, as Amended,
THE PHILIPPINES Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other
Purposes," (1997). chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 172142 -

David B. Camp 45 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
Anano Jr. v. Jose 92376, August 12, 1991, 200 SCRA 530,
Antonio A. Da Tuin 536-537. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 172268 - 46 R. Agpalo, Agpalo's Legal Words and
A & C MINIMART Phrases 688 (1997). chanroblesvirtualawlibary
CORPORATION v.
47 Supra notes 35 & 39.
PATRICIA S. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
VILLAREAL, ET AL.
48 Supra note 28. chanroblesvirtualawlibary
G.R. No. 172406 -

49 Supra note 29.
Concepcion Ilao- chanroblesvirtualawlibary
Oreta v. Sps. Eva

50 Id. at 405.
Marie etc.
51 Id. at 391-393.
G.R. No. 172446 -
ALEXANDER "ALEX"
MACASAET v. R.
TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 172607 - Back to Home | Back to Main
People of the
Philippines v. Rufino
Umanito

Page 29 of 35
G.R. No. 172651 -
UNITED OVERSEAS
BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
ROSEMOOR MINING
AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, ET
AL.
G.R. No. 172760-

61 - Karen & Krlsty
Fishing Industry, et
al. v. The Hon. Court
of Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 172925 -

GSIS v. Jaime K.
Ibarra
G.R. No. 173076 -

MT. CARMEL
COLLEGE v.
JOCELYN RESUENA,
ET AL.
G.R. No. 173127 -

Dee Hua Liong
Electronics Corp, et
al. v. Emelinda
Papiona

Page 30 of 35
G.R. No. 173034 -
PHARMACEUTICAL
AND HEALTH CARE
ASSOCIATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES v.
HEALTH SECRETARY
FRANCISCO T.
DUQUE III, ET AL.
G.R. No. 173256 -

AFI International
Trading Corp., et al
v. Dennis G.
Lorenzo, et al.
G.R. No. 173790 -

People of the Phil. v.
Russel Navarro Y
Marmojada
G.R. No. 173551 -

ARNALDO MENDOZA
v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 173942 -

Fil-Estate Properties
Inc., et al. v. Hon.
Marietta J. Homena
- Valencia, et al.
G.R. No. 174189 -

Page 31 of 35
ALBAY ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE,
INCORPORATED v.
SECURITY PACIFIC
ASSURANCE
CORPORATION
G.R. No. 174373 -

Emelinda V. Abedes
v. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al.
G.R. No. 174585 -

Federico M.
Ledesma, Jr. v.
National Labor
Relations
Commission, et al.
G.R. No. 174689 -

ROMMEL JACINTO
DANTES SILVERIO
v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 174773 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
MARILYN MIRANDA
y RAMA
G.R. No. 174775 -

Page 32 of 35
Mamerto Dulay
G.R. No. 174874 -

GILBERT G. GUY v.
ASIA UNITED BANK
G.R. No. 175020 -

RURAL BANKERS
ASSOCIATION OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
ET AL. v. MA.
ROSARIO TANGHAL-
SALVAÃ‘A
G.R. No. 175163 -

LBP v. Ascot
Holdings & Equities
Inc., et al.
G.R. No. 175338 -

Air Material Wing
etc., et al. v. Manay,
et al.
G.R. No. 175324 -

THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
EDISON MIRA
G.R. No. 175593 -

The People of the

Page 33 of 35
Phil. v. Salvador
Santos Jr Y Salvador
G.R. No. 175480 -

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v.
CONRADO
BARANGAN y
GENERALAO
G.R. No. 176060 -

Arnulfo Fernandez
G.R. No. 176069 -

Mario Constantino
G.R. No. 176154 -

Marcelino Paredes Y
Algara
G.R. No. 178920 -

SP02 Geronimo
Manalo, et al. v.
Hon. PNP Chief
Oscar Calderon, et
al.

Page 34 of 35
Copyright © 1995 - 2020 REDiaz

Page 35 of 35

CAUNCA vs. SALAZAR PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

CAUNCA vs. SALAZAR PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws

October 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year

G.R. NOS. 159104-05 - RODOLFO M. CUENCA, ET

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

RODOLFO M. CUENCA and CUENCA

VELASCO, JR., J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule

45, petitioners assail the January 6, 2003 Decision 1

CA-G.R. CV No. 60338 2 and CA-G.R. SP No.

49686 3 which upheld the jurisdiction of

Resolution 4 denying petitioners' Motion for

Reconsideration. 5 The consolidated cases originated

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Respondent UHC is a wholly owned subsidiary of

In 1978, petitioner Rodolfo M. Cuenca and his

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

On October 21, 1978, petitioner Cuenca was elected

In 1986, the instant controversy between

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Amidst this state of affairs, petitioners filed the

October 2, 1991 Complaint 6 against IRC, UHC, APT,

The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On November 29, 1991, respondents IRC and UHC

filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss 7 on the ground of

respondent PCGG, filed another Motion to Dismiss 8

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

ATTY. ROGELIO Z. IRC and UHC filed their Answer with

BAGABUYO, Counterclaim. 10 Before pre-trial, petitioners sent

FORMER SENIOR their Interrogatories 11 to IRC and UHC, which were

petitioners filed a Motion to Declare Defendants in

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

29, 17 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

ECIJA Reconsideration and/or Lift Order of Default 21 filed

IN THE MUNICIPAL October 22, 1996, petitioners filed an Urgent Ex-

TRIAL COURTS OF Parte Application for Receivership which was

BAYOMBONG AND granted through an October 28, 1996 Order,

SOLANO AND THE appointing Jaime C. Laya as UHC's receiver. After

TRIAL COURT, November 5, 1996 an Order approving the bond,

ARITAO-STA. FE, and receiver Laya submitted his November 13,

ALL IN NUEVA 1996 Oath of Office.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

MTC - RE: REPORT

The appointment of JAIME C. LAYA as

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

D.J. LORENZO v. trial court denied respondent PCGG's Motion for

ORLANDO and Reconsideration 25 through its July 22, 1998

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Sandiganbayan 29 on the issue of sequestration by

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Reconsideration 30 which was denied by the assailed

IPI No. 05-2166-RTJ this Petition for Review .

and A.M. NO. RTJ-

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

A.M. No. RTJ-06- The core issue before us is that of jurisdiction. In

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

Section 2 36 of EO 14 was duly applied in PCGG v.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

UHC x x x or any other act or order of the PCGG." 40

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007octoberdecisions.php?id=1208 19/03/2020, 6@53 AM

a) EO 1, entitled "Creating the Presidential

v. JAIME ORIAL b) EO 2, entitled "Regarding the Funds, Moneys,