IT is the end of the road for Civil Case No. 0033-G, one of the eight subdivided coconut levy fund cases, after the Sandiganbayan Second Division, in a 12-page resolution dated June 26, 2025, ordered it dismissed with prejudice.
The case, part of the original Civil Case No. 0033 filed on July 31, 1987, alleged that the Pepsi companies belong to the government, since the bulk of funds used to acquire them came from the coconut levy funds, specifically P462 million loans from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), a standby letter of credit for P125 million also from UCPB, and P350 million drawn from the Coconut Industry Foundation (CIF).
Named defendants in the original case were businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr., Ernest Escaler, heirs of the late industrialist Ernesto Escaler, former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, former First Lady Imelda Marcos, and corporate defendants ECI Challenge Inc. (ECI), Pepsi Cola Bottling Group (PCBG) of the Philippines, and Pepsi Cola Distributors, Inc. (PCD).
Lawyers from the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that Escaler could not have acquired the loans – considering the huge sums involved – if not for “special favors” extended by Cojuangco, who was then chairman of UCPB and administrator of the coconut levy funds, including the CIF.
The kinship between Escaler and Cojuangco was also cited by the government lawyers as one of the reasons for the special loans.
Escaler, in a pleading dated June 18, 1999, admitted that he is the maternal nephew of Cojuangco’s wife.
In a decision issued on April 28, 2021, the Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition of Cojuangco on the ground of the government’s failure to pursue the case despite decades of pendency in court in violation of his right to constitutional due process.
In a resolution dated Dec. 12, 2024, the Sandiganbayan likewise dismissed the cases as against the Marcos couple and the heirs of the late former President.
On Feb. 13, 2025, the OSG presented a certified copy of the Bagong Pilipinas Commission Resolution No. 2024-0710-002 where PCGG commissioners agreed to “desist from further proceedings in the present case.”
In dismissing the case for good, the Sandiganbayan noted that a in 1989 compromise agreement, the government “agreed to settle the controversy and put an amicable end” to the lawsuit.
In addition, the PCGG submitted a compliance dated Aug. 21, 2003 stating that the loan with the UCPB was already paid in full by the Pensacola Marketing and Distributors, Inc. (later the Lapanday Group) in 1989.
The PCGG said that based on the evidence at hand, the witnesses available, and the circumstances attending the case, pursuing its litigation further is “unwarranted.”
“The Court recognizes the discretion of the plaintiff to move for the dismissal of its complaint under Section 2, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court based on its evaluation as regards the feasibility of pursuing the case. Hence, the dismissal of the third amended complaint, as prayed by the plaintiff, is hereby granted. Accordingly, the present case is deemed disposed of in its entirety,” the Sandiganbayan said.
