Africa v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the sequestration of shares in Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI) by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) pursuant to Executive Order No. 1. Initially, the sequestration covered 60% of ETPI's capital stock (Class "A" shares) deemed beneficially owned by the late Ferdinand E. Marcos and related entities, while 40% (Class "B" shares) owned by Cable and Wireless, Ltd. was later lifted. The PCGG filed Civil Case No. 0009 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and restitution of alleged ill-gotten ETPI shares. 2. Procedural History: Following the PCGG's filing of Civil Case No. 0009, various incidents arose, including the election of PCGG nominees to the ETPI board. Victor Africa, claiming to be an ETPI employee holding multiple positions, filed a petition (G.R. No. 83831) with the Supreme Court seeking to enjoin his ouster from his positions. This Court, finding the issues factual, referred G.R. No. 83831 to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate proceedings, consolidating it with Civil Case No. 0009, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. 0146. The Sandiganbayan subsequently denied Africa's motion for summary judgment. After private respondents filed their answer, the Sandiganbayan granted their motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 0146, finding the petition moot and academic and the Sandiganbayan without jurisdiction over respondents Mabanta and De los Angeles due to their shares not being sequestered. The Sandiganbayan denied Africa's motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition. 3. The Petition: This petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeks to annul the Sandiganbayan's resolutions dated 30 January 1996 and 29 March 1996, which dismissed Civil Case No. 0146 and denied the motion for reconsideration, respectively. Petitioner contends that the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion by dismissing the case instead of conducting appropriate proceedings as directed by the Supreme Court, by dismissing it while similar cases were being heard, by dismissing it entirely instead of dropping only non-involved respondents, and by finding the shares of Mabanta and De los Angeles not sequestered without sufficient documentation. The petitioner argues that his remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 45, not a special civil action for certiorari, as the Sandiganbayan's dismissal order was final and appealable. The Court finds that the petition for injunction had become moot and academic as petitioner's ouster was consummated, and that the Sandiganbayan correctly ruled it lacked jurisdiction over respondents Mabanta and De los Angeles as their shares were not sequestered.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Civil Case No. 0146. Whether the petition for injunction in G.R. No. 83831 (later Civil Case No. 0146) had become moot and academic. Whether the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over private respondents De los Angeles and Mabanta.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the Resolutions of 30 January and 29 March 1996 of the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that the petitioner pursued the wrong remedy. Under Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975, the remedy from a final order of the Sandiganbayan dismissing a case is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court found that the petitioner failed to convince it that a regular appeal under Rule 45 was inadequate, slow, insufficient, or ineffective, relying only on a bare allegation that he had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Sandiganbayan's resolution was final in character as it disposed of the action, making it appealable under Rule 45. On the mootness of the petition for injunction: Even if certiorari were the proper remedy, the Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the petition for injunction had become moot and academic. The act sought to be enjoined, which was the petitioner's ouster from his positions, had already been consummated. The petition in G.R. No. 83831 was filed on June 30, 1988, seeking to enjoin his ouster effective June 30, 1988. No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was issued by this Court, and thus, he was effectively removed. Consequently, his subsequent motion for a preliminary mandatory injunction to reopen his office had no basis. On the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over private respondents: The Court sustained the Sandiganbayan's ruling that it had no jurisdiction over private respondents De los Angeles and Mabanta. These respondents were elected to the board of directors upon the nomination of the foreign investor Cable and Wireless, Ltd., which owned the Class "B" shares. At the time of their election, these Class "B" shares were no longer under sequestration, a fact confirmed by the PCGG and the Sandiganbayan itself in prior resolutions. Applying the rulings in PCGG v. Peña and San Miguel Corporation v. Khan, the Sandiganbayan correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction because the shares pertaining to these private respondents were not covered by a writ of sequestration.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a final order of the Sandiganbayan dismissing a case, as the remedy available is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, unless the appeal is shown to be inadequate, slow, insufficient, or ineffective. Furthermore, a petition for injunction becomes moot and academic when the act sought to be enjoined has already been consummated.