The Sandiganbayan has settled in its entirety the civil forfeiture case filed against two businessmen who were co-respondents of the then late president Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, and the late Eduardo M. Cojuangco Jr.

The case against Cojuangco had been ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2021 due to inordinate delay. Relying on the SC decision in favor of Cojuangco, the Sandiganbayan dismissed in 2024 the case against the Marcoses, also due to inordinate delay.

What was resolved by the Sandiganbayan were the remaining issues on the case against the remaining respondents – the heirs of the late Ernesto O. Escaler and Ernest Escaler who filed counterclaims.

The civil forfeiture case arose from the alleged unlawful acts in acquiring the Pepsi bottling business of Pepsi Co., Inc. in 1985.

The prosecution alleged that it was the respondents’ intent to monopolize the soft drink industry in the country by using coconut levy funds to purchase the local partner of Pepsi Co.

Cojuangco was accused of using coconut levy funds for the organization, capitalization, and operation of ECI Challenge Corp. (ECI), Pepsi Cola Bottling Group (PCBG), and Pepsi Cola Distributors (PCD).

He reportedly used his position at United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) to grant loans to co-defendants Ernesto and Ernest -- named incorporators of ECI, PCBG, and PCD -- that led to the eventual purchase of the local partner of Pepsi Co. for P962,000,000.

The then Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) filed the civil case against them on July 31, 1987, and it was subdivided into eight cases. The third amended complaint, which the anti-graft court disposed of in its June 26 resolution, was docketed as Civil Case 0033-G.

The parties in the case agreed to settle the case amicably and the Sandiganbayan agreed.

The anti-graft court said in its resolution: Admittedly, the amount sought to be recovered, i.e., the alleged coco levy funds that defendants Ernesto and Ernest unlawfully obtained by way of loans, had already been paid in full by Pensacola Marketing and Distributors Inc. in 1989.

However, the court dismissed the counterclaims filed by Ernest and the heirs of Ernesto due to the failure of Ernest to appear during the pre-trial as plaintiff despite notice.

Without valid cause, said failure on the part of defendant Ernest cannot, and should not, be countenanced, the court said.

His non-appearance also prompted the court to rule that the present third amended complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Accordingly, the present case is deemed disposed of in its entirety, the court ruled.

The 12-page resolution was written by Presiding Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Arthur O. Malabaguio.