Trans Middle East v. Sandiganbayan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Trans Middle East (Phils.) Equities, Incorporated (TMEPEI) was organized in 1983. In 1985, a new set of directors was elected. On April 10, 1986, Atty. Edilberto S. Narciso, Jr., as Treasurer of TMEPEI, informed the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) that TMEPEI owned 6,299,177 shares of Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB), with Benjamin Romualdez as the beneficial owner, and that these shares were subject to claims and liens. Consequently, on April 15, 1986, the PCGG sequestered these shares. In July 1987, the PCGG filed a complaint for reconveyance, reversion, restitution, accounting, and damages for ill-gotten wealth against Benjamin Romualdez, et al., including Atty. Narciso, Jr. The PCGG alleged that Benjamin Romualdez and Juliette Romualdez, in conspiracy with others, effected the sale of PCIB shareholdings to TMEPEI, a front organization, with the acquisition financed through loans violating banking laws (DOSRI, SBL, disclosure requirements). Atty. Narciso denied these allegations, stating that he voluntarily disclosed Romualdez's ownership of TMEPEI and its PCIB shares to the PCGG. TMEPEI filed a motion to intervene, claiming ownership of the sequestered shares and alleging lack of due process in their sequestration. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion. TMEPEI later filed a motion for a TRO to enjoin the PCGG from voting its sequestered shares, which was granted. On October 3, 1991, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution perpetually enjoining the PCGG from voting TMEPEI's shares and allowing TMEPEI to vote them. The PCGG filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which set aside the Sandiganbayan's resolutions, holding that the right to vote the shares was not ripe for adjudication and depended on the determination of whether the shares constituted ill-gotten wealth. Procedural History: The Supreme Court directed the Sandiganbayan to resolve the issue with dispatch. The Sandiganbayan subpoenaed Atty. Narciso to testify. Atty. Narciso filed manifestations and motions seeking a directive on whether he should testify, citing lawyer-client privilege. The PCGG filed a comment stating the subpoena was to identify documents filed with the PCGG, which were not confidential. The PCGG also served Atty. Narciso a Request for Admission regarding his April 10, 1986 letter. On June 17, 1997, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution, directing Atty. Narciso to respond to the Request for Admission and testify on matters not specified, subject to court rulings on objections. The Sandiganbayan ruled that the April 10, 1986 letter was not confidential as it was made for communication pursuant to EO No. 2, and that EO No. 2 controlled over the lawyer-client privilege rule. The Petition: TMEPEI filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, assailing the Sandiganbayan's June 17, 1997 Resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction for depriving petitioner of due process and for ruling that the subpoena and request for admission did not violate the lawyer-client privilege.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in issuing the Resolution dated June 17, 1997, thereby depriving petitioner of due process. Whether the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in ruling that the subject subpoena as well as the Request for Admission is not violative of the lawyer-client privilege rule.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and denial of due process: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration is generally required before filing a petition for certiorari, and the petitioner failed to file one without adequate explanation. Furthermore, the Court found no denial of due process, as "to be heard" includes the opportunity to be heard through pleadings. Petitioner was afforded this opportunity when directed to file a comment on Atty. Narciso's manifestations and motions. However, despite notice, petitioner failed to file its comment seasonably, submitting it only after the incidents were deemed submitted for resolution. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim deprivation of due process as it was given the opportunity to present its side but failed to avail of it. The Court emphasized that what is repugnant to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard, which was not present in this case. On the issue of lawyer-client privilege: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan correctly noted that Atty. Narciso's motions were seeking advice or a "directive," which is not the duty of a court; courts decide actual controversies. However, the Court found no error in the Sandiganbayan's ruling that the letter dated April 10, 1986, was not confidential because it was made for the purpose of communicating it to others pursuant to Executive Order No. 2. The Court also affirmed the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that EO No. 2 controlled over the lawyer-client privilege rule in this context, as the EO specifically applied to disclosures of assets constituting ill-gotten wealth amassed during the Marcos regime. The Court noted that the issues raised had become moot with the death of Atty. Narciso.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not a substitute for a lost appeal and requires a motion for reconsideration of the assailed resolution before resort to certiorari, unless exceptions are clearly established. Furthermore, due process is satisfied when a party is given an opportunity to be heard through pleadings, even if they fail to file their comment seasonably.