GR 106527; (April, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. 106527 . April 6, 1993.
CESAR E.A. VIRATA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Cesar E.A. Virata is among the defendants in a complaint filed by the Republic of the Philippines for the recovery of ill-gotten wealth (Civil Case No. 0035). The complaint was amended, with the last version being the expanded Second Amended Complaint. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case, arguing it failed to state a cause of action. The Sandiganbayan denied the motion, and the Supreme Court, in a prior decision ( G.R. No. 86926 ), upheld the Sandiganbayan, stating the complaint sufficiently showed viable causes of action. The Supreme Court, however, noted that if petitioner perceived ambiguity or vagueness, the remedy was not a motion to dismiss but a motion for a bill of particulars. Consequently, petitioner filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars with the Sandiganbayan, alleging the complaint’s allegations were general and sweeping, preventing him from preparing an intelligent answer. The Sandiganbayan partially granted the motion only regarding the fourth “actionable wrong” but denied it for the first three, ruling the matters sought were evidentiary and within petitioner’s personal knowledge. Petitioner assails this partial denial.
ISSUE
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars with respect to the first three “actionable wrongs” alleged in the expanded Second Amended Complaint.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition. It set aside the Sandiganbayan’s resolution to the extent it denied the motion for a bill of particulars for the first three “actionable wrongs.” The Court found the subject allegations in the complaint to be couched in general terms and wanting in definiteness or particularity, similar to the allegations in Tantuico, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines, where a bill of particulars was deemed proper. The matters petitioner sought to be averred with particularity were not evidentiary in nature but were necessary to define the issues and enable him to prepare an intelligent answer. The Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that the matters were evidentiary and within petitioner’s intimate knowledge was without basis and gratuitous, as issues had not been joined and no evidence had been adduced. The Republic was ordered to submit a bill of particulars for the first three “actionable wrongs” within thirty days.