THE Sandiganbayan has approved a compromise agreement signed between the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and heirs of the late Government Service Insurance System president Roman Cruz, an associate of former strongman Ferdinand E. Marcos, in Civil Case No. 0006.
An eight-page resolution of the anti-graft court’s Second Division dated Nov. 19, 2024 granted the joint motion from both parties seeking approval of the deal in which the government agreed to drop all pending court actions relative to Cruz’ actions.
In return, the defendant’s heirs ceded in favor of the government several real estate assets, shares of stocks, and the contents of an escrow account.
These were two units in Europa Condominium Villas on Legarda Road in Camp Sioco and two parcels of land located on Leonard Wood Road. Barangay Outlook Drive all in Baguio City; residential lots in Golden Hills Subdivision and in Snra. De la Paz Subdivision both in Antipolo City; shares of stocks in PLDT covered by stock certificate Nos. 39442 and 39443; and cash held in an escrow account at the Bureau of Treasury kept in trust for Europa Condominium amounting to some P1.1 million as of Aug. 31, 2024.
The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Mabaguio.
The case, originally filed by the PCGG on July 21, 1987, named Marcos, his wife Imelda, and Cruz, who also served as president of the Philippine Airlines, and the Manila Hotel.
The PCGG sought forfeiture of real estate properties valued at least P276.69 million, including two lots and two condominium units in Baguio City, a residential building in Makati, a parcel of land and six condominium units in California, USA and a residential lot in Manila.
It also asked the court for award of P50 billion in moral damages and P1 billion in exemplary damages.
But in a ruling issued on Oct. 4, 2024, the Sandiganbayan ordered the cases against the Marcos estate and Mrs. Marcos sustaining their argument that their right to speedy disposition of cases was violated due to the lengthy delay of more than three decades.
The Marcos couple was declared in default in 1989 for failing to file their answer to the lawsuit but this was set aside in 1992 after the court granted a request of Mrs. Marcos to be given a chance to contest the allegations.
Government lawyers did not oppose the Marcoses’ motion to dismiss noting that “there are no more allegations against the Estate of the late Ferdinand Marcos” since the PCGG case as against the Marcos Estate had already been excluded back on Oct. 12, 2012 for lack of proof that Cruz acted as a dummy.
As regards Cruz, the PCGG and the defendant’s heirs informed the Sandiganbayan that the details of the compromise agreement underwent review by both the Office of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice, neither of whom raised any objection.
In agreeing to settle the case, the PCGG stated that it “fully, forever, irrevocably and absolutely releases, discharges, and holds free and harmless the second party (Cruz heirs ), their heirs, transferors, assignors, from any action, and any and all claims and damages arising out of, or incident or related to, the Cases and the alleged actions and/or omissions of the deceased Roman A. Cruz Jr.”
The agreement and the immunity applies to other legal actions against Cruz in Civil Case No. 0034-A and Civil Case No. 0014 both of which are pending before the Supreme Court.
In addition, the PCGG declared that it is aware of the condition of the assets being turned over to it by the heirs and that it agrees to “be responsible for all acts necessary to restore the settlement assets to a usable or marketable state” including processing the titles.
Likewise, the PCGG waived any claim over Unit 9-A Urdaneta Apartment, a property located in Urdaneta Village in Makati City, in favor of the Heirs of Cruz.
In approving the compromise agreement, the Sandiganbayan held that it found nothing that is “contrary to law, morals, or public policy” after a close scrutiny.
“It is settled jurisprudence that in consonance with the law on contracts, the compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, and public policy. And to be binding, it must be shown to have been voluntarily, freely, and intelligently executed by the parties, who had full knowledge of the judgment,” the court said.
It directed all relevant agencies and offices to undertake the transfer of titles of the real and personal properties to the Republic of the Philippines covered by the settlement.
