DIGEST: HANNAH GARCIA /EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ENRIQUE M. COJUANGCO, MANUEL M. COJUANGCO, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA and GABRIEL L. VILLAREAL vs. THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), JULIETA C. BERTUBEN, IDE C. TILLAH, EMMANUEL E. CRUZ, SERGIO OSMEÑA III AND TIRSO D. ANTIPORDA, JR.,

 

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., ENRIQUE M. COJUANGCO, MANUEL M. COJUANGCO, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA and GABRIEL L. VILLAREAL
vs.
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), JULIETA C. BERTUBEN, IDE C. TILLAH, EMMANUEL E. CRUZ, SERGIO OSMEÑA III AND TIRSO D. ANTIPORDA, JR., 

G.R. No. 120640 August 8, 1996

 

FACTS:

The filing of this petition was led when during the annual meeting of the stockholders of SMC on April 18, 1995, also happened the election of fifteen directors for the ensuing year. Petitioners with private respondents were among the nominees to the board. Subsequently, the respondents were nominated by Chairman Magtanggol Gunigundo of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG). During the election, the bulk of the votes cast by petitioner Mendoza in favor of his group had come from substantially the same sequestered corporate shares of SMC which were used by the PCGG in voting for the private respondents.

With the votes casted, private respondents were accordingly declared to have been the elected members of the SMC Board of Directors for the year 1995-1996. None of the petitioners were elected and included in the list. One of the petitioners questioned the results of the election contending that the votes he had cast, particularly those in representation of the corporate shares, had not been duly appreciated and reflected in the results, and that had said votes been properly counted Estelito Mendoza, Manuel Cojuangco and Enrique Cojuangco would have themselves been duly elected. SMC Corporate Secretary Jose Feria stood by his verbal ruling during the canvassing of votes that only the PCGG, through Chairman Gunigundo, could validly vote the sequestered shares.

With the aforementioned event, petitioners were caused to file a petition for quo warranto before the Sandiganbayan questioning the election of PCGG's nominees to the SMC Board and prayed that the respondents be ousted from the board and petitioners to be declared instead as members.

Petitioners questioned the dismissal of The Sandiganbayan of the petition and the rejection of its motion for reconsideration alleging that The Sandiganbayan: (1) erred in applying to S.B. Civil Case No. 0166 the new doctrine enunciated by the First Division of this Honorable court in the case of Garcia, Jr. vs Sandiganbayan et al., holding that The Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction over a petition for Prohibition, Mandamus and Quo Warranto; (2) that in dismissing the petition for quo warranto, the Sandiganbayan ignored applicable decisions of this Honorable court rendered in several cases holding that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive and original jurisdiction over special civil actions, including petitions for quo warranto and over special civil actions involving the powers and functions of the PCGG.

ISSUE:

Whether or not The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the rule that the Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto is not without exception, a situation which by now should be fairly evident from the Court's pronouncements in a number of cases. In various cases, the Court concluded that any attempt to remove special civil actions, similarly involving the powers and functions of the PCGG, from the Sandiganbayan's exclusive jurisdiction would be of no avail.

Cases from the Regional Trial Courts, as well as from the Securities and Exchange Commission, were subsequently filed with the Court. A supplemental petition was filed with the SEC by one of the stockholders of the SMC assailing the 1986 annual election of directors on the ground that PCGG voted the sequestered shares without authority. The SMC Board of Directors moved to dismiss the petition contending that SEC had no jurisdiction over the action. The motion was denied by the SEC declaring that what was being questioned were merely 'the acts of the Board of Directors of San Miguel Corporation and not the acts of the PCGG through its nominees,' a matter clearly within its statutorily prescribed competence. When this order of the SEC and those of the Regional Trial Courts in the other related cases were eventually elevated to this Court, we stressed that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Sandiganbayan would evidently extend not only to the principal causes of action, the recovery of alleged ill-gotten wealth, but also to all incidents arising from, incidental to, or related to, such cases.

Hence, the Court ordered the dismissal of the cases without prejudice to the assertion and ventilation before the Sandiganbayan by the parties of their respective claims by such appropriate modes as prescribed by law. This petition is not just confined to the grievance of petitioners relative to the election of directors and the counting of the votes therein cast but directly challenges the power of the PCGG to vote, or to make use of, the sequestered shares of stock. While ordinarily the Sandiganbayan cannot exercise jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto, it may, do so as an exception when it involves an incident arising from, or related to PCGG cases over alleged "ill-gotten wealth" within the context of Section 2 of Executive Order No. 14.

R.A. No. 7975 grants to the Sandiganbayan the power to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.

Digest: Hannah Garcia