MANILA, Philippines -- Coconut farmers can intervene in the pending case involving ownership of a portion of coconut levy funds, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The high court decision stemmed from a petition by coconut farmers to reverse a Sandiganbayan anti-graft court ruling which declared that 20 percent of the disputed San Miguel Corp. shares, also being claimed by businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco” were not public property, and therefore could not be considered coco levy funds.

In its five-page resolution, the high tribunal dismissed the argument raised by Cojuangco that a motion to intervene might be filed only before rendition of judgment by the lower court under the Rules of Court. The petition for intervention does not follow the legal requirement stated under the Rules of Court, he said.

"The petition for review filed by petitioner Republic was filed out of time; hence an intervention which is merely ancillary to the principal action may not be allowed," Cojuangco said, adding that the intervenors lacked legal interest.

The intervenors include former Senate President Jovito Salonga and former senator Wigberto Tañada, former congressman Oscar Santos, Surigao del Sur Federation of Agricultural Cooperatives (SUFAC), and Moro Farmers Association of Zamboanga del Sur (MOFAZS) both represented by Romeo Royandoyan and Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahan ng Magsasaka (National Movement of Farmers’ Groups).

"Respecting intervenors' alleged lack of legal interest, the petition-in-intervention may be deemed a taxpayer's suit which the court may entertain at its discretion," the Supreme Court said.

The high court added that since they accepted the government's petition for review despite being filed out of time, it was only proper to entertain the petition for intervention.

In the petition, the farmers’ groups said the anti-graft court should have ruled that the shares were public property because they were purchased with loan proceeds from companies Cojuangco had served in, and which were funded by coco levy funds that were collected from coconut farmers in the ‘70s and ‘80s.

They alleged that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) performed poorly in handling the case, prompting them to take a more active role in the recovery of the shares amounting to about P18.8 billion.

The decision by the Sandiganbayan dated Nov. 28, 2007 seemed to fault the PCGG for failing to produce or present some documents that the court had required the government agency to produce in the hearing.

Rightly or wrongly, the court noted that perhaps the PCGG fell short of expectations, said Tañada.

Tañada, concurrent chairman of the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), also took note of reports that the present PCGG might be less than enthusiastic in recovering Marcos wealth, including the disputed SMC shares.

Meanwhile, Santos said Cojuangco had admitted in his answer and pre-trial brief that the SMC shares were purchased through loans from the United Coconut Planters Bank, where Cojuangco was president.

So the link and trail had been established, Santos said.

Under the rules of court, such judicial admission did not require proof, said Santos.

By not putting up any collateral and using his position and influence, Cojuangco violated his fiduciary duties to the UCPB and CIIF when he issued the loans to 14 holding companies that eventually purchased the SMC shares, Tañada said.

In 2001, the Supreme Court declared the coco levy funds as public funds and said the government only held the amount in trust for the farmers. The Sandiganbayan was tasked to locate the funds and distribute them to the farmers.