G.R. No. 116941 May 31, 2001
TIRSO ANTIPORDA, JR., JULIETA C. BERTUBEN, IDE TILLAH, SERGIO OSMEÑA III, JEIME CALPO, EMMANUEL CRUZ, RICARDO DE LA CRUZ, and PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION), EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ENRIQUE M. COJUANGCO, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, GABRIEL L. VILLAREAL and RAFAEL G. ABELLO, respondents.

FACTS

In 1986, the PCGG sequestered shares of stock in San Miguel Corporation (SMC) registered in the names of several corporations allegedly beneficially owned by Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. These corporations filed a petition with the Sandiganbayan (SB Case No. 0110) seeking to lift the sequestration. They initially raised two grounds but later withdrew the first ground, which challenged the prima facie basis for the sequestration, and opted to pursue only the second ground: that the writs were automatically lifted under Section 26, Article XVIII of the 1987 Constitution for the PCGG’s failure to file a corresponding judicial action within six months from the Constitution’s ratification. The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division granted the petition and lifted the writs in a Resolution dated April 8, 1992. The PCGG’s petition for review before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 104850) was denied. Subsequently, the PCGG, as the registered owner of the sequestered shares by virtue of a voting trust agreement, nominated its representatives to the SMC Board. These nominees were elected on April 19, 1994. In May 1994, the private respondents filed a petition for quo warranto (Civil Case No. 0162) with the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division, seeking to nullify that election. The petitioners moved to dismiss the quo warranto petition, but the Sandiganbayan denied the motion. This denial is the subject of the present certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss the quo warranto petition, which was predicated on the claim that the lifting of the sequestration writs restored to the private respondents the right to vote the SMC shares and, consequently, the authority to question the election of the PCGG’s nominees.

RULING

No, the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss is an interlocutory order that generally cannot be assailed via certiorari, as it does not terminate the proceedings. An exception exists if the denial was issued with grave abuse of discretion, meaning a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioners failed to demonstrate such abuse. The core issue in the quo warranto case—who had the right to vote the sequestered shares and elect directors—was a matter properly requiring a full hearing on the merits. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that the automatic lifting of the sequestration under the Constitution, as affirmed in the prior SB Case No. 0110, pertained only to the proprietary aspect of the shares. It did not automatically resolve the ownership or the voting rights issues, which remained pending in the main ill-gotten wealth case (Civil Case No. 0033). The legal effect of the sequestration’s lifting on the PCGG’s authority to vote the shares under the trust agreement was a substantive question that could not be summarily determined in a motion to dismiss. Therefore, the Sandiganbayan