Philippines
National
Sandiganbayan declares final, unappealable dismissal of civil case vs 3 coconut firms
Sandiganbayan declares final, unappealable dismissal of civil case vs 3 coconut firms
The Sandiganbayan has declared final and unappealable its 2023 decision 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.
Declared final 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).
On Jan. 24, 2024, the three firms filed a motion for issuance of entry of judgment in their case. It was granted by the Sandiganbayan in a resolution issued today, Feb. 28.
"Considering the finality of judgment in the instant case, it has now become a ministerial duty of the Court to issue a Certificate of Finality and to cause its entry of the same to the Books of Judgment," the anti-graft court said in a resolution written by Associate Justice Arthur O. Malabaguio with the concurrence of Associate Justices Oscar C. Herrera Jr. and Edgardo M. Caldona.
Case records show that on July 31, 1987, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed Civil Case No. 0033 with the late businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. as the main defendant.
In 1995, the Sandiganbayan ordered the subdivision of Civil Case No. 0033 into eight cases due to the number of defendants involved. The case against Cocofed, CIC, and Cocomark went to Civil Case N. 0033-B.
On May 16, 2023, the anti-graft court granted the motion of the three firms to dismiss the case on ground of inordinate delay. The firms then filed a motion for entry of judgment which was granted.
The collection of coconut levy fund started in the 1970s. The alleged irregularity in the handling and disbursement of the levy was traced to Cojuangco, the late former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and former senator Juan Ponce Enrile.
The funds collected for every sale of coconut and its by-products reportedly went to the United Coconut Planters Bank and San Miguel Corporation, among other firms.
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.”