GR 187951; (June, 2012) (Digest)
G.R. No. 187951; June 25, 2012
THE WELLEX GROUP, INC., Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondent.
FACTS
The Sandiganbayan convicted former President Joseph Estrada of plunder and ordered the forfeiture of specific assets in favor of the government. Following a presidential pardon that expressly preserved the forfeiture, the court issued a Writ of Execution. An Amended Writ later directed the sheriff to forfeit assets traceable to the ill-gotten wealth, including 750 million Waterfront Philippines, Inc. shares held in the “Jose Velarde” trust account, adjudged to be owned by Estrada. Petitioner Wellex Group, Inc., which was not a party to the plunder case, claimed ownership of 450 million of these shares, asserting they were merely pledged as collateral for a loan it had since extinguished. Wellex filed a Third-Party Claim with the Sandiganbayan, arguing the shares could not be forfeited as they were not Estrada’s property. The Sandiganbayan denied the claim, holding that the forfeiture proceeding was in rem against the property itself, and Wellex’s remedy was a separate civil action to assert ownership.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in including the 450 million Waterfront shares in the forfeiture proceedings despite Wellex’s third-party claim of ownership.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The Court explained that the Sandiganbayan’s plunder judgment included a directive to forfeit all ill-gotten wealth and any property traceable thereto. The Amended Writ of Execution properly implemented this judgment by targeting assets, like the Waterfront shares, found within the Jose Velarde account, which the Sandiganbayan had definitively declared to be Estrada’s repository of ill-gotten wealth. The proceeding was in rem, acting directly upon the property subject to forfeiture. Consequently, a third-party claimant like Wellex is not a necessary party to the criminal case. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that Wellex’s proper recourse was not to intervene in the execution of the criminal judgment but to file a separate civil action to vindicate its claim of ownership. This separate action would determine the true ownership of the shares without impeding the finality and execution of the criminal forfeiture order. The Sandiganbayan’s adherence to this procedure was a valid exercise of its jurisdiction and not arbitrary or capricious.