Resolution of commercial cases
IF NEWS reports and the website of the Supreme Court are to be believed, the issue over the ownership of 753,848,312 shares of stocks of San Miguel Corp. that were bought during the martial law years with coconut levy funds is finally (finally!) settled.
In its Aug. 11, 2015 decision, the tribunal reiterated its 2012 ruling that, since those funds constitute public funds, those shares, together with all dividends earned and their increments, are owned by the government.
The 2012 decision also stated that “no further pleadings shall be entertained. Let Entry of Judgment be made in due course.”
This means no motion for reconsideration will be allowed and the decision will be enforced in due time after it has been served on the parties.
Unfortunately, the losing parties—United Coconut Planters Bank and Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corp.—did not take that admonition seriously. They probably thought it was something they can ignore and be able to get away with.
So three months after that supposedly final and executory decision was issued, they filed separate petitions for declaratory relief with a trial court in Makati City alleging that part of the purchase price for the stocks came from their own resources.
Disposition
Based on that premise, they asked the court to declare their rights and interests over those stocks and take them into consideration in their disposition later.
Despite the opposition of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), the court proceeded to hear the petitions and ordered PCGG to answer them.
As a consequence of that action, the enforcement of the 2012 decision was held in abeyance. Two years later, in February 2014, the tribunal, upon PCGG’s motion, ordered the court to stop hearing the cases.
Putting to rest all issues relating to the ownership of the stocks, the tribunal (voting 11-0) ruled the court had no authority to hear the cases and ordered their dismissal.
In a subtle rebuke to the court and the parties, the tribunal said “litigation must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, and it is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict.”
Barring any further legal maneuvers by UCPB and Cocolife, the August 2015 decision could be the last word on this 27-year-old case.
Delaying tactics
This is not the first time the enforcement of a supposedly final and executory decision of the tribunal has been derailed or delayed by the losing parties through deft legal moves.
In recent years, a number of commercial cases that have already been decided by the tribunal were “re-filed” in the lower courts by making them look like new causes of actions although the parties and issues are the same.
The subterfuge is done by, for example, describing the new case as a petition for declaratory relief (where a party wants the court to declare his rights or interests in a contract or document), or petition for new trial based on newly discovered evidence that may justify a review of the earlier decision on a case, or motion to re-open the case for failure to include a party who has a substantial interest in it or is indispensable to its effective resolution.
With the threat of further litigation and incurring additional expenses, the winning party in the earlier decided case is often “beggared” or forced into agreeing to waive the full effects of an already won case or entering to a settlement short of what has been awarded to him.
Under normal circumstances, attempts to subvert or undermine the decisions of the tribunal should not be entertained by lower courts. The problem is, for the right amount of arguments, some judges gladly play along with the scheme and do not mind being rebuked by the tribunal for ignorance of the law.
Injunctions
Another area of concern for the business community in relation to the lower courts is their interference in certain business activities that Presidential Decree No. 1818 specifically orders them to lay their hands off.
P.D. 1818 prohibits all courts from issuing any restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction in any case involving an infrastructure, mining, forestry, forest or other natural resource development project of the government.
The prohibition also covers any person, entity or governmental entity executing, implementing or operating such project, or is engaged in any lawful activity that is necessary for such execution, implementation or operation.
In spite of repeated reminders from the tribunal about scrupulous compliance with this law, some judges continue to issue restraining orders against the projects earlier mentioned upon the request of losing bidders or some supposedly cause-oriented groups.
The result: Delayed implementation of projects, idle equipment and manpower, higher operational costs (which include lawyers’ expenses), financing overruns and lost collateral business opportunities.
Like our elections, in the bidding for government projects, there are no losers, only cheated bidders.
It’s bad enough that some businessmen do not know how to accept defeat in big ticket government projects; worse, some judges willfully allow themselves to be used in subverting established government procurement processes.
The aborted move to flaunt the tribunal’s 2012 decision over the issue of true ownership of SMC shares should be the last. It’s time the tribunal send a strong disciplinary message to the judges and lawyers concerned that compliance with its decisions is a matter of obligation and not of choice.
For comments, please send your email to “[email protected].”
