THE Sandiganbayan has ordered the dismissal of the government’s claim of damages against defendants in two coconut levy cases that had won in 2003 and 2004 after the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) decided not to pursue additional compensation.
In a 34-page motion, the Sandiganbayan First Division dismissed both Civil Case Nos. 0033-A and 0033-F, formally terminating the 37-year-old cases filed by the PCGG in July 1987.
Among the original defendants in both cases were the late businessman Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his widow, former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and former Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile.
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 United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) was “conclusively owned by the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines.”
A separate Partial Summary Judgment issued on May 7, 2004 in Civil Case No. 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 (SC) in separate decisions issued in 2012.
In both instances, neither the Sandiganbayan nor the SC passed upon the Republic’s claims for actual, moral, temperate, nominal, and exemplary damages.
During a case conference on July 3, 2024, upon inquiry from the Sandiganbayan justices about its stance on the unresolved claims for damages, the Office of the Solicitor General told the court that the Republic would rather waive the claims.
This was made formal with a filing of a Motion and Manifestation dated July 15, 2024 with an attached resolution of the PCGG stating that “the Commission will no longer pursue its claim for the actual, morl, temperate, nominal, and exemplary damages” in both Civil Case Nos. 0033-A and 0033-F.
“Plaintiff Republic’s Motion and Manifestation in this case has the effect and import of a motion to withdraw. In the PCGG resolution, plaintiff clearly and unequivocally states that it will no longer pursue the claims for damages in these cases. As such, this Court rules that the plaintiff Republic’s Manifestation and Motion… which amounts to a motion to withdraw, must be granted,” the Sandiganbayan said.
