The Sandiganbayan has affirmed its ruling that dismissed, for inordinate delay that violated the right to speedy disposition of cases, the civil case against three corporations which were allegedly formed with funds from the multi-billion-peso coconut levy.
Affirmed was the dismissal of Civil Case No. 0033-B filed by the Presidential Commission Good Government (PCGG) against the Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (Cocofed), Coconut Investment Co. (CIC), and Cocofed Marketing Corp. (Cocomark).
The anti-graft court, in a resolution issued on July 31, 2023, denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the PCGG through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the government’s statutory counsel.
"The motion for reconsideration must be denied. Primarily, the grounds relied upon by the plaintiff have already been carefully and exhaustively considered and passed upon in the assailed resolution," the court ruled.
Civil Case No. 0033, with the late businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. as its main defendant, was filed by the PCGG on July 31, 1987. The Sandiganbayan ordered that it be subdivided into eight cases in 1995 due to the number of individuals named as defendants. The cases against defendants Cocofed, CIC, and Cocomark were transferred to Civil Case No. 0033-B.
In 2019, Cojuangco filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) and sought the dismissal of the cases filed against him for inordinate delay that violated his right to speedy disposition of cases.
In 2021, a year after Cojuangco’s demise, the SC granted the petition as it ordered the dismissal of the civil cases.
Cojuangco’s favorable decision from the SC was invoked by Cocofed, Cocomark and CIC in pleading the Sandiganbayan to likewise dismiss the case against the firms.
In a resolution issued on May 16, 2023, the Sandiganbayan ordered the dismissal of the case against the three firms. It said:
“With this case pending for over 30 years and possibly more without assurance of its resolution, the Court recognizes the tactical disadvantages carried by the passage of time which should be weighed against the plaintiff (government through PCGG) and in favor of herein movants (three firms).
“Indeed, more than 30 years is far too long for this this case to remain pending without concluding pre-trial and commencing trial proper.
“In San Miguel Corp. vs Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court acknowledged that ‘the delay is no longer tolerable for it locks in billions of pesos which could well rev-up our sputtering economy. Worse, it constitutes another embarrassing evidence of snail-paced justice, so long lamented but mostly by our lips alone.’
“’The Sandiganbayan must not be the burial ground of cases of far-reaching importance to our people. It is time for it to write finish to Civil Case No. 0033.’
“If not, then, justice delayed would truly be justice denied.”
Last May 31, the PCGG filed a motion for reconsideration against the May 16, 2023 resolution. It argued that Cocofed, CIC, and Cocomark are not similarly situated with Cojuangco and their right to speedy disposition of cases was not violated since they failed to timely assert the same. The prosecution even accused them of "dilatory motions" that contributed to the delay of the proceedings of the case, it said.
But the Sandiganbayan disagreed. It ruled: "As the plaintiff (PCGG) did not raise any argument to convince this Court that its ruling is erroneous or contrary to the law or evidence, its motion for reconsideration must be denied for lack of merit.”
The resolution was written by Associate Justice Arthur O. Malabaguio with the concurrence of Second Division Chairperson Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Associate Justice Edgardo M. Caldona.