GR 154560; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 154560 ; July 13, 2010
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Sandiganbayan (Second Division), Ternate Development Corporation, et al., Respondents.
FACTS
The Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) sequestered several corporations allegedly owned by associates of former President Ferdinand Marcos. In 1987, the Republic filed a complaint for reconveyance of ill-gotten wealth against the Marcos spouses and the individual associates (the Enriquez group) in Civil Case 0014. The corporations were listed in an annex as assets. In 1991, the Republic moved to amend the complaint to formally implead these corporations as defendants, alleging they were used as fronts. The corporations moved to dismiss, arguing impleadment was unnecessary and the amended complaint stated no cause of action against them. The Sandiganbayan granted the motions and lifted the sequestration orders. The Republic filed this petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the main case against the individual defendants for the Republic’s failure to appear at hearings.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the amended complaint against the corporate respondents and lifting the sequestration orders.
RULING
No. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. First, the petition for certiorari was an improper remedy. A dismissal order is a final order appealable via a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65. Certiorari is only for lack or excess of jurisdiction, not for correcting errors of judgment. Second, on the substantive issues, the Sandiganbayan correctly dismissed the amended complaint. The Court, in the seminal Republic v. Sandiganbayan (310 Phil. 401) case, had already ruled that corporations which are merely the res or repositories of ill-gotten wealth, and not themselves guilty of wrongdoing, need not be impleaded as defendants. Judgment can be directed against the shares of stock or assets themselves. The amended complaint, therefore, failed to state a cause of action against the corporate respondents. Consequently, the lifting of the sequestration orders was proper. The sequestration was merely a provisional remedy to preserve assets pending litigation; with the dismissal of the complaint against the corporations, the legal basis for maintaining the sequestrations ceased.