Writ of Sequestration; Opportunity to Contest
Facts and documents indubitably showing that petitioner made a prima facie factual determination on the ill-gotten nature of the properties involved before the writs of sequestration were issued were ignored and discarded thereby resulting in deprivation of petitioners right to due process of law
In resolving whether there is a prima facie case that the properties ordered to be sequestered are ill-gotten wealth under Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, we have to examine and evaluate petitioners order of sequestration itself and its minutes of meeting.
On this point, we find it relevant to define ill-gotten wealth. In Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc., this Court described ill-gotten wealth as follows: Ill-gotten wealth is that acquired through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the Government or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence, resulting in unjust enrichment of the ostensible owner and grave damage and prejudice to the State. And this, too, is the sense in which the term is commonly understood in other jurisdictions.
Concerning respondents shares of stock here, there is no evidence presented by petitioner that they belong to the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions. Nor is there evidence that respondents, taking undue advantage of their connections or relationship with former President Marcos or his family, relatives and close associates, were able to acquire those shares of stock.
Significantly, the only evidence held by petitioner prior to the issuance of the writs of sequestration was the minutes of its meetings (reproduced earlier). Although there were 190 exhibits, however, petitioner, prior to the issuance of the orders of sequestration, had no evidence to prove that respondents shares of stock are prima facie ill-gotten wealth.
Petitioner assails the Sandiganbayans conclusion that the minutes of meeting do not reflect any deliberation showing that the shares of stock sequestered are prima facie ill-gotten wealth. In resolving this issue, the Sandiganbayan held:
Indeed, the value of the minutes of the respondents meetings cannot be overemphasized by this Court because it is as well the responsibility of an administrative tribunal to draw up their decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately reflect their conclusions and their final dispositions. It is a requirement of due process and fair play that the parties be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions it derived. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors for review by a higher tribunal. Moreover, the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The finding of a prima facie factual foundation prior to the issuance of a writ of sequestration undoubtedly shares the rationale advanced in the aforecited jurisprudence.
As stated earlier, this Court affirmed the Sandiganbayans Decision in Civil Cases Nos. 0095 and 0100 declaring void petitioners sequestration of respondents properties. The evidence presented in these two cases is similar to those presented in the instant cases. This Court referring likewise to petitioners minutes of meeting involved in Civil Cases Nos. 0095 and 0100 held:
Other than being informative of PCGG internal procedure on how and by whom sequestration orders in general are issued and of the accomplishments of one of its then commissioners, the excerpts are absolutely unreflective of any deliberation by PCGG commissioners particularly concerning the sequestration order against SIPALAY, much less the factual basis for its issuance. They do not even make the slightest allusion to SIPALAY, or ALLIED. That Atty. Hontiveros devoted two (2) months for document-searching only to come up with minutes that are as barren as the testimonial evidences of the PCGG validates indeed the claim of respondent corporations which may well sum-up the PCGGs case specifically against SIPALAY, that:
The only logical conclusion that may be reached by Atty. Hontiveros inability to produce PCGG records in regards respondent Sipalay is that there was no evidence before the PCGG or any of its Commissioners which would tend to establish that the shares of stock in Maranaw registered in the name of private respondent Sipalay are ill-gotten.
There being no evidence, not even a prima facie one, there was therefore no valid sequestration of the SIPALAY shares in the Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corporation.
While it has been held in Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, Inc. that orders of sequestration may issue ex parte it was emphasized that a prima facie factual foundation that the properties sequestered are ill-gotten wealth is required, and that the person whose property is sequestered has the opportunity to contest the validity of sequestration pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules and Regulations of PCGG itself. Indeed, that opportunity to contest includes resort to the courts. The opportunity to contest will be meaningless unless there is a record, on the basis of which the reviewing authority, including the court, may determine whether the PCGGs ruling that the property sequestered is ill-gotten wealth was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That record should include the reason why the shares of stock are being sequestered and the record of the proceedings, on the basis of which, issuance of the order of sequestration was authorized. Those records do not exist here.
Without any reason in the sequestration order why respondents shares of stock were being sequestered, it would be impossible to determine whether the order of sequestration was issued with any prima facie factual foundation. But petitioner relies on the presumption of validity of official acts. Suffice it to state that such presumption undermines the basic principle embodied in the Constitution that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. (G.R. No. 173553-56; December 7, 2007)
In resolving whether there is a prima facie case that the properties ordered to be sequestered are ill-gotten wealth under Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2, we have to examine and evaluate petitioners order of sequestration itself and its minutes of meeting.
On this point, we find it relevant to define ill-gotten wealth. In Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Co., Inc., this Court described ill-gotten wealth as follows: Ill-gotten wealth is that acquired through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of funds belonging to the Government or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence, resulting in unjust enrichment of the ostensible owner and grave damage and prejudice to the State. And this, too, is the sense in which the term is commonly understood in other jurisdictions.
Concerning respondents shares of stock here, there is no evidence presented by petitioner that they belong to the Government of the Philippines or any of its branches, instrumentalities, enterprises, banks or financial institutions. Nor is there evidence that respondents, taking undue advantage of their connections or relationship with former President Marcos or his family, relatives and close associates, were able to acquire those shares of stock.
Significantly, the only evidence held by petitioner prior to the issuance of the writs of sequestration was the minutes of its meetings (reproduced earlier). Although there were 190 exhibits, however, petitioner, prior to the issuance of the orders of sequestration, had no evidence to prove that respondents shares of stock are prima facie ill-gotten wealth.
Petitioner assails the Sandiganbayans conclusion that the minutes of meeting do not reflect any deliberation showing that the shares of stock sequestered are prima facie ill-gotten wealth. In resolving this issue, the Sandiganbayan held:
Indeed, the value of the minutes of the respondents meetings cannot be overemphasized by this Court because it is as well the responsibility of an administrative tribunal to draw up their decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately reflect their conclusions and their final dispositions. It is a requirement of due process and fair play that the parties be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions it derived. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the party, who is unable to pinpoint the possible errors for review by a higher tribunal. Moreover, the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The finding of a prima facie factual foundation prior to the issuance of a writ of sequestration undoubtedly shares the rationale advanced in the aforecited jurisprudence.
As stated earlier, this Court affirmed the Sandiganbayans Decision in Civil Cases Nos. 0095 and 0100 declaring void petitioners sequestration of respondents properties. The evidence presented in these two cases is similar to those presented in the instant cases. This Court referring likewise to petitioners minutes of meeting involved in Civil Cases Nos. 0095 and 0100 held:
Other than being informative of PCGG internal procedure on how and by whom sequestration orders in general are issued and of the accomplishments of one of its then commissioners, the excerpts are absolutely unreflective of any deliberation by PCGG commissioners particularly concerning the sequestration order against SIPALAY, much less the factual basis for its issuance. They do not even make the slightest allusion to SIPALAY, or ALLIED. That Atty. Hontiveros devoted two (2) months for document-searching only to come up with minutes that are as barren as the testimonial evidences of the PCGG validates indeed the claim of respondent corporations which may well sum-up the PCGGs case specifically against SIPALAY, that:The only logical conclusion that may be reached by Atty. Hontiveros inability to produce PCGG records in regards respondent Sipalay is that there was no evidence before the PCGG or any of its Commissioners which would tend to establish that the shares of stock in Maranaw registered in the name of private respondent Sipalay are ill-gotten.
There being no evidence, not even a prima facie one, there was therefore no valid sequestration of the SIPALAY shares in the Maranaw Hotels and Resort Corporation.
While it has been held in Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co, Inc. that orders of sequestration may issue ex parte it was emphasized that a prima facie factual foundation that the properties sequestered are ill-gotten wealth is required, and that the person whose property is sequestered has the opportunity to contest the validity of sequestration pursuant to Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules and Regulations of PCGG itself. Indeed, that opportunity to contest includes resort to the courts. The opportunity to contest will be meaningless unless there is a record, on the basis of which the reviewing authority, including the court, may determine whether the PCGGs ruling that the property sequestered is ill-gotten wealth was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. That record should include the reason why the shares of stock are being sequestered and the record of the proceedings, on the basis of which, issuance of the order of sequestration was authorized. Those records do not exist here.
Without any reason in the sequestration order why respondents shares of stock were being sequestered, it would be impossible to determine whether the order of sequestration was issued with any prima facie factual foundation. But petitioner relies on the presumption of validity of official acts. Suffice it to state that such presumption undermines the basic principle embodied in the Constitution that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people. (G.R. No. 173553-56; December 7, 2007)