It is all over.
After 37 years, the Sandigabayan has thrown out the remaining coconut levy cases against former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his widow Imelda R. Marcos, former Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, businessmen Cesar Zalamea and Jesus Pineda, and the heirs of former Zamboanga mayor Maria Clara Lobregat citing the failure of plaintiff Republic of the Philippines to proceed to trial despite the pendency of the cases for more than three decades.
In its 42-page Resolution dated December 12, 2024, the Sandiganbayan Second Division held that the government is barred from pursuing all six remaining coco levy cases designated as Civil Case Nos. 0033-B to E and 0033-G to H based on the principle of stare decisis.
“The said doctrine is a bar to any attempt to re-litigate the same issue where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court,” the anti-graft court said.
The ruling was penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg, division chairperson, with Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio, concurring.
Specifically, the Sandiganbayan held that the 2019 ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cojuangco vs. Sandiganbayan should apply to the rest of the defendants in the coco levy cases since, like the late businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco, delays in the proceedings of the pending cases have also violated their constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
“Herein defendants are similarly situated as defendant Cojuangco …as they suffered from the same protracted delays, postponements of pre-trial, and suspension of proceedings. On the other hand, plaintiff Republic has not presented any compelling argument for this Court to relitigate and reopen these matters, much less a reason to diverge from the conclusions of the highest court of the land,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The original case, Civil Case No. 0033 was filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) on July 31, 1987 for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and award of billions in damages.
The said complaint was amended three times on October 2 and December 8, 1987, and yet again on August 23, 1987.
In 1995, the Sandiganbayan ordered the case to be subdivided to simplify proceedings noting the sheer number of individual and corporate defendants involved made the original case too unwieldy.
The subdivided complaints were filed on separate dates from March to May 1995 and labelled as Civil Case Nos. 0033-A to 0033-H.
The government won two major victories in Civil Case Nos. 0033-A a majority stake in the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and in 0033-F involving 33,133,266 shares of San Miguel Corp.
In a Partial Summary Judgement issued on July 11, 2003 in Civil Case No. 0033-A, the Sandiganbayan declared that the disputed 72.2 percent of the First United Bank (FUB) which represented 64.98 percent of the UCPB was “conclusively owned by the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines.”
A separate Partial Summary Judgment issued on May 7, 2004 in 0033-F, declared that a block of 33,133,266 shares of San Miguel Corp rightfully belonged to the coconut farmers and ordered their transfer to the government to be held in trust.
Both rulings were subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in separate decision issued in 2012.
Similar attempts at piece-meal judgments in the six other cases however were denied by the Sandiganbayan.
Civil Case No. 0033-B alleges conspiracy among the defendants in relation to the creation of various companies out of the coco levy funds; 0033-C alleges anomalies in the Bugsuk Island Project relative to the propagation of hybrid coconut seedlings; 0033-D concerns disadvantageous purchases and payments to various oil mills from the coco levy funds; 0033-E involves unlawful disbursement and dissipation of the coco levy collections; 0033-G questioned the propriety of the acquisition of Pepsi-Cola Philippines using coconut levy funds; and 0033-H was about behest loans and contracts drawn also involving the coco levy money.
Assets sought for recovery in 0033-C was estimated at around P998 million.
On the other hand, based on a 2020 yearend report of the PCGG, government claims amounted to P270 million in 0033-B; P1.87 billion in 0033-D; no amount mentioned in 0033-E; P206.6 million in 0033-G; and P673.34 million in 0033-H.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan noted that the Republic also suffered financial burdens from lengthy court battles and lost opportunities to build its case with passage of decades.
“However, such risks should have put plaintiff Republic on notice to actively prosecute its case and to present its evidence at the earliest opportunity. Plaintiff’s seeming reluctance, and indeed, refusal, to proceed to trial is the root of the delay in these cases,” the court pointed out.
On the side of the defendants, the Sandiganbayan noted that while waiting for government lawyers to start the trial and present witnesses, they also saw their own chances at presenting their side dwindle as documents are forgotten and potential witnesses grew old and passed on.
“As long as this case remains active, the defendants are subjected to a cloud of anxiety, suspicion, and hostility and they have continuously spent their resources on legal representation for a period of more than three decades,” the court said.
It declared that the lack of action on the part of the PCGG and its counsel, the Office of the Solicitor General, to proceed with the six coconut levy cases was “attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays resulting in the violation of the defendants’ right to speedy disposition of cases.”
“It is patently absurd to claim that the current amount of delay is necessary or beneficial to the resolution of the cases herein. Mere invocation of the gravity and notoriety of the overarching illegal scheme or activity upon which a specific case relates will not suffice as justification for the delay in its resolution,” the Sandiganbayan added.
