Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

PCGG vs DUMAYAS

FACTS:

The PCGG issued and implemented numerous sequestrations, freeze orders and
provisional takeovers of allegedly ill-gotten companies, assets and properties, real or personal.
Among the properties sequestered by the Commission were shares of stock in the United
Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) registered in the names of the alleged “one million coconut
farmers,” the so-called Coconut Industry Investment Fund companies (CIIF companies) and
Private Respondent Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. In connection with the sequestration of the said
UCPB shares, the PCGG, on July 31, 1987, instituted an action for reconveyance, reversion,
accounting, restitution and damages docketed as Case No. 0033 in the Sandiganbayan.

On November 15, 1990, upon Motion of Private Respondent COCOFED, the


Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution lifting the sequestration of the subject UCPB shares on the
ground that herein private respondents – in particular, COCOFED and the so-called CIIF
companies – had not been impleaded by the PCGG as parties-defendants in its July 31, 1987
Complaint for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages.

This Sandiganbayan Resolution was challenged by the PCGG in a Petition for Certiorari
docketed as GR No. 96073 in this Court. Meanwhile, upon motion of Cojuangco, the anti-graft
court ordered the holding of elections for the Board of Directors of UCPB. However, the PCGG
applied for and was granted by this Court a Restraining Order enjoining the holding of the
election. Subsequently, the Court lifted the Restraining Order and ordered the UCPB to proceed
with the election of its board of directors. Furthermore, it allowed the sequestered shares to be
voted by their registered owners.

Respondents petitions for declaratory relief filed in the RTC asserted their claim of
ownership over the sequestered CIIF companies and indirectly the CIIF SMC Block of Shares.

Petitioners Arguments

PCGG contends that respondent judge gravely abused his discretion. It argues that the
RTC has no jurisdiction over the acts performed by PCGG pursuant to its quasi-judicial
functions, particularly those relating to the issuance of writs of sequestration, and that all cases
involving ill-gotten wealth assets are under the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Respondents Arguments
UCPB and COCOLIFE argue that since they have properly alleged a case for declaratory
relief, jurisdiction over the subject matter lies in the regular courts such as the RTC of Makati
City. Having filed a motion to dismiss, PCGG is deemed to have admitted the material
allegations of the complaint. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction if the subject matter of the case
does not involve or has no relation to the recovery of ill-gotten wealth.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC Lack of jurisdiction over suits involving the sequestered coco
levy assets and coco levy funds.

RULING:
Yes. The RTC has no jurisdiction over suits involving the sequestered coco levy assets
and coco levy funds.
Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a
case. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law and is
determined by the allegations of the complaint and the relief prayed for, regardless of whether
the plaintiff is entitled to recovery upon all or some of the claims prayed for therein. Jurisdiction
is not acquired by agreement or consent of the parties, and neither does it depend upon the
defenses raised in the answer or in a motion to dismiss.aw

Under Section 4 (C) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249, the
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan included suits for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and related
cases:
(C) Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2,
14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
The Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions for the
issuance of the writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, injunctions, and other
ancillary writs and processes in aid of its appellate jurisdiction and over petitions of similar
nature, including quo warranto, arising or that may arise in cases filed or which may be filed
under Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986: Provided, That the jurisdiction
over these petitions shall not be exclusive of the Supreme Court.
In PCGG v. Pea, we made the following clarification on the extent of the Sandiganbayan
jurisdiction:

x x x Under section 2 of the President Executive Order No. 14 issued on May 7, 1986, all
cases of the Commission regarding the Funds, Moneys, Assets, and Properties Illegally Acquired
or Misappropriated by Former President Ferdinand Marcos, Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos,
their Close Relatives, Subordinates, Business Associates, Dummies, Agents, or Nominees
whether civil or criminal, are lodged within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan and all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases
necessarily fall likewise under the Sandiganbayan exclusive and original jurisdiction, subject to
review on certiorari exclusively by the Supreme Court
MAMISCAL v. ABDULLAH
FACTS:
Petitoner averred that he and his wife, Adelaidah Lomondot (Adelaidah) had a heated
argument. In a fit of anger, Mamiscal decided to divorce his wife by repudiating her (talaq).The
repudiation was embodied in an agreement (kapasadan) signed by Mamiscal and Adelaidah.
A few days later, Mamiscal had a change of heart and decided to make peace with his wife. For
the purpose, he sent their common relatives to see Adelaidah and make peace with her on his
behalf.a
Almost five (5) months later Adelaidah filed the Certificate of Divorce (COD), with the
office of Abdullah for registration. Although unsigned, the certificate, purportedly executed by
Mamiscal, certified that he had pronounced talaq in the presence of two (2) witnesses and in
accordance with Islamic Law for the purpose of effecting divorce from Adelaidah. Abdullah
issued the Certificate of Registration of Divorce (CRD) finalizing the divorce between Mamiscal
and Adelaidah.
Petitioner Mamiscal sought the revocation of the CRD contended that the kapasadan was
invalid considering that he did not prepare the same and no witnesses to its execution. He
claimed that he only signed the kapasadan because of Adelaidah's threats. He contended that
under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, a divorce under talaq could only be filed and
registered by the male spouse, considering that female Muslims could do so only if the divorce
was through tafwid.C
Respondent Abdullah denied Mamiscal's motion. In sustaining the divorce between
Mamiscal and Abdullah, Abdullah opined that it was simply his ministerial duty to receive the
COD and the attached kapasadan filed by Adelaidah. Considering the fact that Adelaidah
manifested her opposition in writing to any reconciliation with her husband and the fact that the
90-day period of 'iddah had already lapsed, Abdullah ruled that any move to reconstitute the
AAC would have been futile because the divorce between Mamiscal and his wife had already
become final and irrevocable.
Contending that the issuance of the CRD was tainted with irregularity, Mamiscal comes
to this Court, through the subject complaint, charging Abdullah with partiality, violation of due
process, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.

ISSUE:
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to impose administrative sanction against Abdullah
for his acts.
RULING:
No.Court does not have jurisdiction to impose the proper disciplinary action against
civil registrars. While he is undoubtedly a member of the Judiciary as Clerk of Court of the
Shari'a Circuit Court, a review of the subject complaint reveals that Mamiscal seeks to hold
Abdullah liable for registering the divorce and issuing the CRD pursuant to his duties as
Circuit Registrar of Muslim divorces. It has been said that the test of jurisdiction is the nature
of the offense and not the personality of the offender. The fact that the complaint charges
Abdullah for "conduct unbecoming of a court employee" is of no moment. Well-settled is the
rule that what controls is not the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the
complaint. Verily, unless jurisdiction has been conferred by some legislative act, no court or
tribunal can act on a matter submitted to it.
Jurisprudence is replete with rulings that jurisdiction, or the power and authority of a
court to hear, try and decide a case must first be acquired by the court or an adjudicative body
over the subject matter and the parties in order to have authority to dispose of the case on the
merits. Elementary is the distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction
over the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by the Constitution or by law. In
contrast, jurisdiction over the person is acquired by the court by virtue of the party's voluntary
submission to the authority of the court or through the exercise of its coercive processes.
Jurisdiction over the person is waivable unlike jurisdiction over the subject matter which is
neither subject to agreement nor conferred by consent of the parties.

Paje vs Casino (749 SCRA 39)


FACTS:
Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA), a government agency organized and
established under Republic Act No. (RA) 7227, and Taiwan Cogeneration Corporation (TCC)
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) expressing their intention to build a
power plant in Subic Bay which would supply reliable and affordable power to Subic Bay
Industrial Park (SBIP).
On July 28, 2006, SBMA and TCC entered into another MOU, whereby TCC undertook
to build and operate a coal-fired power plant. On April 4, 2007, the SBMA Ecology Center
issued SBFZ Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) in favor of Taiwan Cogeneration
International Corporation (TCIC), a subsidiary of TCC, for the construction, installation, and
operation of 2x150-MW Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Coal-Fired Thermal Power Plant at
Sitio Naglatore.
TCC assigned all its rights and interests under the MOU dated July 28, 2006 to Redondo
Peninsula Energy, Inc. (RP Energy). RP Energy then contracted GHD Pty., Ltd. (GHD) to
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed coal-fired power plant and to
assist RP Energy in applying for the issuance of an ECC from the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR).
Thereafter DENR, through former Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., issued an ECC for the
proposed 2x150-MW coal-fired power plant. Sometime thereafter, RP Energy decided to include
additional components in its proposed coal-fired power plant. On July 8, 2010, the DENR-EMB
issued an amended ECC (first amendment) allowing the inclusion of additional components,
among others. Several months later, RP Energy again requested the DENR-EMB to amend the
ECC. Instead of constructing a 2x150-MW coal-red power plant, as originally planned, it now
sought to construct a 1x300-MW coal-􀁆red power plant. The DENR-EMB granted the request
and further amended the ECC (second amendment).
The sangguniang bayan opposed the coal power plant. Hon. Casino’s group filed for a
writ of kalikasan against RP energy, SBMA, DENR. The Casiño Group alleged, among others,
that the power plant project would cause grave environmental damage that it would adversely
affect the health of the residents of the municipalities of Subic, Zambales, Morong, Hermosa,
and the City of Olongapo.
CA: Denied the writ of kalikasan due to the failure of the Casiño Group to prove that its
constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology was violated or threatened.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the denying of the writ of kalikasan is proper?
RULING:
No. The Rules on the Writ of Kalikasan, which is Part III of the Rules of Procedure for
Environmental Cases, was issued by the Court pursuant to its power to promulgate rules for the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, in particular, the individual’s right to a
balanced and healthful ecology. Section 1 of Rule 7 provides: Section 1. Nature of the writ.—
The writ is a remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s
organization, nongovernmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
The writ is categorized as a special civil action and was, thus, conceptualized as an
extraordinary remedy, which aims to provide judicial relief from threatened or actual violation/s
of the constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology of a magnitude or degree of
damage that transcends political and territorial boundaries. It is intended “to provide a stronger
defense for environmental rights through judicial efforts where institutional arrangements of
enforcement, implementation and legislation have fallen short” and seeks “to address the
potentially exponential nature of large-scale ecological threats.”
Under Section 1 of Rule 7, the following requisites must be present to avail of this
extraordinary remedy: (1) there is an actual or threatened violation of the constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology; (2) the actual or threatened violation arises from an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity; and (3) the actual or
threatened violation involves or will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces.
Expectedly, the Rules do not define the exact nature or degree of environmental damage but only
that it must be sufficiently grave, in terms of the territorial scope of such damage, so as to call for
the grant of this extraordinary remedy. The gravity of environmental damage sufficient to grant
the writ is, thus, to be decided on a case-to-case basis.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen