G.R. No. 212436 , October 02, 2019
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Petitioner, v. Sandiganbayan 2nd Division, Traders Royal Bank, Royal Traders Holding Co., Inc. and Bank of Commerce, as successors-in-interest of Traders Royal Bank, Respondents.

FACTS

In 1997, the Republic, through the PCGG, filed a complaint for sum of money, reconveyance, and enforcement of foreign judgment against Traders Royal Bank (TRB) to recover alleged ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos. The PCGG presented witnesses Reynaldo Guiao, Eleuterio Camarote, and Julieta Bertuben in 1999. Subsequently, TRB changed its name to Royal Traders Holding Co., Inc. (RTHCI), which was later purchased by Bank of Commerce. The PCGG amended its complaint to implead RTHCI and Bank of Commerce, alleging the sale was to mingle assets and escape obligations. The Sandiganbayan, in a 2007 Resolution, denied the PCGG’s prayer to consider evidence already presented against the new defendants, stating it would violate Bank of Commerce’s right to cross-examination and that witnesses needed to be recalled. Despite this, the PCGG later manifested it would adopt the witnesses’ testimonies against Bank of Commerce. Bank of Commerce manifested its need to cross-examine. Multiple hearing schedules were set for cross-examination in 2012, but each time the PCGG manifested the witnesses were unavailable and could no longer be located. Bank of Commerce moved to strike the testimonies, arguing it was denied the opportunity to cross-examine. The PCGG opposed, arguing Bank of Commerce was TRB’s successor-in-interest and bound by TRB’s prior cross-examination, and that the burden to recall witnesses fell on Bank of Commerce. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion to strike in its September 25, 2013 Resolution, and denied the PCGG’s motion for reconsideration on March 25, 2014.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the testimonies of witnesses Guiao, Camarote, and Bertuben stricken off the record as to Bank of Commerce for violating the bank’s right to cross-examination.

RULING

The Petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s Resolutions. The right to cross-examine is an essential part of due process in civil cases. The PCGG’s allegation that Bank of Commerce and TRB were one corporate entity due to a fraudulent purchase, and thus shared an identity of interest that satisfied the cross-examination requirement, was a mere conclusion of law or allegation not yet established. Identity of interest or privity between parties must be proven to bind one party to another’s prior cross-examination. The PCGG failed to establish such identity or privity between TRB and Bank of Commerce. Furthermore, the inability to cross-examine was attributable to the PCGG, as the party offering the witnesses, who repeatedly failed to produce them. Until cross-examination is completed, testimony cannot be considered complete and cannot form part of the evidence. The Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in striking the testimonies to protect Bank of Commerce’s inviolable right to cross-examination.