Sandigan affirms dismissal of forfeiture vs 3 coco levy firms
The Sandiganbayan has affirmed the finality of the dismissal of a forfeiture case against three of the firms created out of the Coconut Industry Investment Fund, also known as the coco levy funds, during martial law.
In a six-page resolution promulgated on Feb. 28, the anti-graft court’s Second Division has granted the Motion for Issuance of Entry of Judgement filed by Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), Coconut Investment Corp. (CIC) and the Cocofed Marketing Corp. (COCOMARK) despite the opposition of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
The Second Division said the dismissal of the forfeiture case against the three coco levy firms has already attained finality as the PCGG, represented in court by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), failed to file any appeal or motion within the 15-day reglementary period from the date of the notice of judgement.
The Second Division cited Section 2, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court, which states that “if no appeal or motion for new trial or reconsideration is filed within the time provided in these Rules, the judgement or final order shall forthwith be entered by the clerk in the book of entries of judgements.”
Once a ruling is entered in the lower court’s Book of Entries of Judgements, that ruling is beyond appeal though it may still be challenged before the Supreme Court.
It was on May 16, 2023 when the Second Division dismissed the PCGG’s forfeiture case against COCOMARK, COCOFED and CIC on the ground of the supposed violation of their right to due process and speedy disposition of cases.
The Second Division noted that it has been more than 30 years since the civil suit was filed by the PCGG but the latter has yet to conclude its pretrial work and commence with the trial proper. On July 31, 2023, the Second Division denied the motion for reconsideration of the PCGG and upheld the dismissal of the case.
Since then, the Second Division noted, no appeal or pleading has been filed by the PCGG, even if the record showed that a copy of the July 31, 2023 resolution was received by the PCGG through its counsel, the OSG, via electronic mail (e-mail) on Aug. 1, 2023.
“Considering the finality of judgement in the instant case, it has now become a ministerial duty to the Court to issue a Certificate of Finality, and to cause its entry of the same to the Books of Judgments,” the resolution, penned by Associate Justice Arthur Malabaguio, read.
Associate Justices Oscar Herrera Jr. and Edgardo Caldona concurred with the ruling.
The court gave no merit to the PCGG’s explanation that its employee, who was detailed at the OSG, failed to timely give a copy of the July 31 resolution to the solicitor handling the case. The PCGG said it was only on Jan. 26, 2024 when the copy of the July 31 resolution was handed to the assigned division of the OSG.
Nonetheless, the PCGG begged for the court’s “understanding and compassion” amid the lapses, invoking the “interest of substantial justice and in view of the great public interest involved in this case.”
“The bare invocation of ‘the interest of substantial justice’ is not a magic wand that will automatically compel this Court to suspend the procedural rules. Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their nonobservance may have resulted in prejudice to a party’s substantial rights,” the Second Division said quoting a previous SC ruling.
Docketed as Civil Case No. 0033-B, the forfeiture suit covers companies created using the coco levy funds.
It was one of the eight subdivided coco levy cases filed by the PCGG in 1987, a year after the ouster of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos.