SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 147227. November 19, 2004]
MARIA REMEDIOS ARGANA, DONATA ALM LMEN ENDR DRA ALA VD VDA A. DE ARG RGA ANA NA,, LU LUIS IS ARG RGA ANA NA,, R., R ., !ERE REG GRIN INO O ARG RGA ANA NA,, ESTATE O" GELA#IO ARGANA, EU"RO#INIO NO"UENTE, AM!ARO AM!ARO ARGANA NO"UENTE, UANIT UA NITO O RO ROGE GELIO LIO,, MIL MILAG AGROS ROS ARGA RGANA NA ROGE RO GELI LIO, O, MA MARI RIA A "E "ELI LI#I #IDA DAD D ARG RGA ANA NA,, MAR MA RIA DO DOR ROTE TEA A ARG RGA ANA NA,, RE"E "EDO DOR R SOUT$ GOLD !RO!ERT% MANAGEMENT & DEVELO!MENT #OR!ORATION, petitioners, vs. RE!U'LI# O" T$E !$ILI!!INES !$ILI!!INES,, respondent. DE#ISION TINGA, J.( J.(
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari assailing assailing the Resolution dated Resolution dated April 11, 2000 and the Order dated dated Feruar! 22, 2001 of the Sandigana!an, "hird Di#ision, in Ci#il Case No$ 002%$ &1'
On (ul! (ul! 2), 2), 1)*+ 1)*+,, resp respon onde dent nt epu epul lii- of the the .hilippine .hilippines s filed /ith the Sandigana!an Sandigana!an a Petition for Forfeiture of Forfeiture of alleged illgotten assets and properties of the late ai3ino A$ Argana, /ho ser#ed as a!or of the
uni-ipalit! of untinlupa fro3 1)%4 to 1)%+ and fro3 1)+2 until his death in 1)*5$ &2'
On O-toer 2*, 1))*, the Sandigana!an re3anded the the -ase -ase to the the .res .resid iden enti tial al Co33 Co33is issi sion on on 6ood 6ood 6o#ern3ent 7.C668 for the -ondu-t of an in9uir!$ In 1))0, the -ase /as rea-ti#ated in the Sandigana!an$ .etitioners aria e3edios Argana, Donata Al3endrala Vda$ De Argana, Argana, :uis Argana, Argana, (r$, .eregrino .eregrino Argana, Argana, Estate of 6ela-io Argana, Eufro-inio Nofuente, A3paro Argana Nofuente, (uanito ogelio, ilagros Argana ogelio, aria Feli-idad Argana, aria Dorotea Argana, and and efe efedo dorr Sout South h 6old 6old .rop .roper ert! t! ana anage ge3e 3ent nt ; De#el De#elop3 op3ent ent Corpor Corporati ation on filed filed a series series of 3otion 3otions, s, in-luding a Motion to Dismiss on Dismiss on the ground of the la-< of authorit! of the .C66 to institute the -ase on ehalf of respondent$ "his issue e#entuall! rea-hed this Court and /as de-ided in fa#or of respondent on Septe3er 2), 1))4$ &='
.eti .etiti tion oner ers, s, in thei theirr Answer, denied that the propertie properties s sought sought to e forfeite forfeited d ! responden respondentt /ere unla/full! a-9uired ! the de-eased a!or and>or ! peti petiti tion oner ers$ s$ Stil Still, l, to a#oi a#oid d a prot protra ra-t -ted ed liti litiga gati tion on,, petitione petitioners rs eerted eerted efforts efforts to settle settle the -ase a3i-al! /ith respondent through the .C66$ After a series of 3otions /ere again filed ! petitioners, the Sandigana!an finall! set the -ase for pretrial on No#e3er 2%, 1))+, ut the pretrial /as reset se#eral ti3es in #ie/ of the 3anifestation of the parties that the! /ere in the pro-ess of negotiating a -o3pro3ise$
On August +, 1))+, petitioners offer of -o3pro3ise /as a--epted ! the .C66 in its Resolution No. 97-18 A.
Owned by Other (ersons 8.3% 39.!48!5 hectares
&4'
"hereafter, the .C66 -ondu-ted an e#aluation of the properties offered for settle3ent ! petitioners$ In a Memorandum dated August 1*, 1))+, auro ($ Estrada, Dire-tor of the .C66 esear-h and De#elop3ent .rogra3, re-o33ended the in-lusion of another tra-t of land elonging to petitioners a3ong the properties /hi-h /ould e su?e-t of the -o3pro3ise$ &5'
On Septe3er 1*, 1))+, respondent, represented ! .C66 Co33issioners e!naldo S$ 6uiao and @er3inio A$ endoa entered into a Com!romise A"reement /ith petitioners, represented ! petitioner aria Feli-idad Argana$ .etitioners -on#e!ed, -eded and released in fa#or of respondent a total of =%1$)20= he-tares of agri-ultural land in .angil and Fa3!, :aguna, or +5$12 of the properties su?e-t of litigation, in -onsideration of the dis3issal or /ithdra/al of all pending -i#il, -ri3inal and ad3inistrati#e -ases filed, litigated or in#estigated ! respondent against the3$ "he re3ainder /as distriuted as follo/s To be retained by the late Mayor Arganas heirs 9.88% 47.78787 hectares Owned by the Mayors Brothers and Sisters 5.53% !.!3"8 hectares #oreclosed by $os Baos &ral Ban' ".4% 5.985!
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))) 4.88% "*.*539 hecta res
&%'
In a letter dated O-toer +, 1))+, the .C66 infor3ed the Offi-e of the Soli-itor 6eneral 7OS68 of the signing of the Com!romise A"reement and re9uested the OS6 to file the appropriate 3otion for appro#al thereof /ith the Sandigana!an$ &+'
Suse9uentl!, the OS6 re9uested for -larifi-ation fro3 the .C66 if the -o3pro3ise agree3ent in-luded all the se9uestered assets of petitioners su?e-t of litigation$ In response to the re9uest, .C66 infor3ed the OS6 in a letter dated Feruar! 4, 1))* that the properties 3entioned in the Com!romise A"reement -o3prise all the se9uestered assets su?e-t of litigation, and reiterated that it entered into a -o3pro3ise agree3ent /ith petitioners e-ause it elie#ed that the e#iden-e 3ight not e suffi-ient to /arrant -ontinuing the prose-ution of Ci#il Case No$ 002% and that it is to the est interest of the go#ern3ent to a--ept the offer of petitioners$ &*'
&)'
On a! 2+, 1))*, then .resident of the epuli- of the .hilippines Fidel V$ a3os appro#ed the Com!romise A"reement et/een petitioners and respondent$ &10'
hectares
On (une 4, 1))*, the OS6 filed /ith the Sandigana!an a Motion to A!!ro#e Com!romise A"reement $ .etitioners epressed their -onfor3it! to the 3otion on (une 15, 1))*$ &11'
After -ondu-ting hearings on the 3otion, the Sandigana!an pro3ulgated its De$ision on (ul! =1, 1))* appro#ing the Com!romise A"reement and rendering ?udg3ent in a--ordan-e /ith the ter3s thereof$ &12'
@o/e#er, on O-toer 5, 1))*, respondent, through the OS6 and the .C66, filed /ith the Sandigana!an a Motion to Res$ind Com!romise A"reement and to %et Aside &ud"ment '( Com!romise 7Motion to Res$ind 8$ espondent pra!ed for the res-ission of the Com!romise A"reement or refor3ation thereof after a renegotiation /ith petitioners$ espondent -ontended that the partition of the properties in the Com!romise A"reement /as grossl! disad#antageous to the go#ern3ent and that there /as fraud and insidious 3isrepresentation ! petitioners in the distriution and partition of properties, to the da3age and pre?udi-e of the go#ern3ent$ A--ording to respondent, there /as fraud and insidious 3isrepresentation e-ause petitioners proposed to di#ide the properties/ith +5 a--ruing to the go#ern3ent and the re3aining 25 going to petitioners and their other -reditorsased on the total land area of the properties instead of on their #alue$ As a result, the go#ern3ent otained onl! "hree illion Si @undred "/ent! "housand .esos 7.=,%20,000$008 /orth of land, /hile petitioners re-ei#ed al3ost Four Billion .esos 7.4,000,000,000$008 /orth$
.etitioners filed an Answer to the Motion to Res$ind and -ontended that the (ul! =1, 1))* De$ision of the Sandigana!an -ould no longer e annulled e-ause it had alread! e-o3e final and ee-utor! that respondents -ounsel had no authorit! to file the 3otion and that the 3otion /as defe-ti#e e-ause it did not in-lude a Certifi-ation against Foru3 Shopping$ "he! also argued that there /as no agree3ent to di#ide the properties ! a +5 to 25 ratio in fa#or of the go#ern3ent$ hat the! proposed to -ede to the go#ern3ent ! /a! of -o3pro3ise /ere their properties in .angil -o#ered ! "ransfer Certifi-ate of "itle 7"C"8 Nos$ "4044 and "400) and those in Fa3!, :aguna -o#ered ! "C" Nos$ "=*1= to "=*1+ and " 4104, 410% and 410*, not a spe-ifi- per-entage of the properties su?e-t of litigation$ &1='
In its Resolution dated Septe3er 22, 1))), the Sandigana!an treated the Motion to Res$ind as a petition for relief fro3 ?udg3ent under ule =* of the 1))+ ules on Ci#il .ro-edure and set the 3otion for hearing$ On April 11, 2000, the Sandigana!an issued a Resolution granting respondents 3otion to res-ind and setting aside the De$ision dated (ul! =1, 1))*$ "he Sandigana!an held that the Motion to Res$ind /as filed on ti3e on O-toer 5, 1))*, the /or
of -ases for forfeiture of unla/full! a-9uired propert! is a fun-tion of the OS6$ .etitioners failed to sho/ proof that pleadings or 3otions filed ! la/!ers of the go#ern3ent or the .C66 3ust first e appro#ed ! the .C66 )n *an$ and ! the .resident of the epuli-$ "he Sandigana!an li
ith respe-t to the issue of fraud, it held that there /as etrinsi- fraud in the ee-ution of the Com!romise A"reement. "he Sandigana!an stated The +al&es were deliberately o,itted to ,a'e it a--ear that the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent adheres to the 75%/5% ratio broadly ado-ted by the (00 in co,-ro,ising cases o1 ill/gotten wealth. 2t was this 75%/5% ,ode o1 co,-ro,ise with the greater share o1 75% going to the go+ern,ent that ,isled the o&rt to belie+e as e did belie+e that the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent was 1air reasonable and ad+antageo&s to the 0o+ern,ent. hat was -roected to be a 75%/5% ratio was in reality a **."5%/99.85% ratio with 99.85% going to the Arganas. This is &nconscionable and i,,oral. And since it res<s in a transaction grossly disad+antageo&s and i,,oral to the go+ern,ent it is against the law as being +iolati+e o1 Section 36g o1 e-&blic Act 3*"9.
the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent adhered to the 75%/5% ratio ado-ted by the (00 in entering into co,-ro,ise o1 cases in+ol+ing the reco+ery o1 ill/gotten wealth. Thro&gh their in1idelity those in the (00 who handled or were closely in+ol+ed with the case d&ring the last days o1 the -re+io&s ad,inistration 1ra&d&lently ga+e the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent a se,blance o1 1airness and o11icial acce-tability. They sold -lainti11 e-&blic down the ri+er by entering into an agree,ent grossly disad+antageo&s to the go+ern,ent. #or while -lainti11 e-&blic got **."5% 6**."5*74 o1 the esti,ated +al&e o1 all the -ro-erties in+ol+ed in this case de1endants al,ost ran away with 99.85% 699.845! o1 their +al&e. This is -atently &n1air. 2t is no co,-ro,ise b&t a +irt&al sell/o&t. 2t co&ld not ha+e been -&lled o11 witho&t the conni+ance or coll&sion o1 those res-onsible 1or the case in the (00. 2nstead o1 -rotecting the interest o1 the go+ern,ent they conni+ed at its de1eatal,ost. &1%'
.etitioners filed a Motion for Re$onsideration dated a! ), 2000 and a %u!!lement to said 3otion dated a! =0, 2000$ .etitioners also filed an +r"ent Motion for oluntar( ni'itiondated a! 1*, 2000 pra!ing that the 3e3ers of the "hird Di#ision of the Sandigana!an #oluntaril! inhiit the3sel#es fro3 hearing and resol#ing the petitioners pending 3otions$ On Feruar! 22, 2001, the Sandigana!an issued t/o Orders, one den!ing petitioners 3otion for re-onsideration, and the other, den!ing the 3otion for #oluntar! inhiition$ &1+'
&1*'
2n the instant case 1ra&d o1 an etrinsic character eists beca&se the re-resentati+es o1 -lainti11 e-&blic in the (00 conni+ed with de1endants in hiding the assessed or ,ar'et +al&es o1 the -ro-erties in+ol+ed so as to ,a'e it a--ear that
@en-e, petitioners filed the present petition on April 2+, 2001$ espondent filed its Comment on O-toer 22, 2001$
On No#e3er 12, 2001, the Court issued a Resolution gi#ing due -ourse to the petition and re9uiring the parties to su3it their respe-ti#e 3e3oranda$ &1)'
espondent filed its Memorandum on (anuar! 2), 2002$ .etitioners filed theirs on Feruar! 2%, 2002$ In their respe-ti#e 3e3oranda, the parties reiterated the argu3ents in their earlier pleadings$ Spe-ifi-all!, petitioners raise the follo/ing argu3ents 7A8 "he Sandigana!an 7"hird Di#ision8 denied .etitioners their right to sustanti#e and pro-edural due pro-ess /hen it refused to #oluntaril! inhiit itself fro3 further hearing the instant -ase$ 7B8 "he .C66 la/!ers had no authorit! to as< for the res-ission of the su?e-t Com!romise A"reement /ithout the -onsent of the .C66 )n *an$ and the .resident of the epuli- of the .hilippines$ 7C8 "he Motion to Res$ind, /hi-h /as treated ! the Sandigana!an 7"hird Di#ision8 as a .etition for elief under ule =* of the ules of Court, is fatall! defe-ti#e e-ause
". 2t was not 1iled by a -arty to the case i.e. it was 1iled by co&nsel witho&t the clients a&thority. . 2t was 1iled o&t o1 ti,e.
7D8 "here is no fa-tual or legal asis for the finding of fraud ! the Sandigana!an 7"hird Di#ision8$ 7E8 pon appro#al of the Com!romise A"reement , t he Sandigana!an 7"hird Di#ision8 lost ?urisdi-tion o#er the -ase, in-luding the authorit! to res-ind said Com!romise A"reement and to set aside the ?udg3ent ased thereon$ 7F8 "he Sandigana!an 7"hird Di#ision8 la-
.etitioners -ontend that the 3e3ers of the "hird Di#ision of the Sandigana!an should ha#e inhiited the3sel#es fro3 resol#ing petitioners 3otion for re-onsideration e-ause fro3 the tenor of the April 11, 2000 Order of the -ourt granting respondents 3otion to res-ind, it /as e#ident that the Sandigana!an had alread! pre?udged the properties su?e-t of litigation as ha#ing een unla/full! a-9uired$ &21'
.etitioners li
3. 2t was 1iled sans any s&--orting A11ida+it o1 Merit. 4. 2t lac'ed the re&ired erti1ication on :on/ #or&, Sho--ing.
In addition, petitioners insist that the Motion to Res$ind /hi-h /as treated ! the Sandigana!an as a petition for relief fro3 ?udg3ent under ule =* is fatall! defe-ti#e for 7i8 la-< of authorit! of respondents la/!ers
to file the sa3e 7ii8 ha#ing een filed out of ti3e 7iii8 nonsu3ission of an Affida#it of erit and 7i#8 non su3ission of a Certifi-ation against Foru3Shopping$ &2='
It is argued ! petitioners that the Sandigana!an should ha#e denied respondents Motion to Res$ind outright for ha#ing een filed /ithout authorit! fro3 the .C66 )n *an$ and the .resident of the epuli-, oth of /ho3 earlier appro#ed and authoried the ee-ution of the Com!romise A"reement. A--ording to petitioners, after final ?udg3ent has een rendered in a -ase, an attorne! has no i3plied authorit! fro3 his -lient to see< 3aterial or sustantial alterations or 3odifi-ations in su-h ?udg3ent$ &24'
.etitioners -lai3 that the Motion to Res$ind /as filed onl! on O-toer 5, 1))*, or e!ond sit! 7%08 da!s fro3 the ti3e the Sandigana!an pro3ulgated its (ul! =1, 1))* De$isionappro#ing the Com!romise A"reement $ In support of their petition, petitioners -ite Se-tion = of ule =* /hi-h re9uires that the petition for relief e filed /ithin sit! 7%08 da!s after the part! see
&2%'
&2+'
It is further argued ! petitioners that the Sandigana!ans finding that the settle3ent et/een petitioners and respondent /as attended ! fraud has no fa-tual or legal asis$ .etitioners point out that the
propert! #alues -ited ! respondent in its Motion to Res$ind /ere ased solel! on the esti3ates of the .C66 la/!ers and no e#iden-e of the #aluation of the properties /ere presented efore the Sandigana!an to estalish fraud$ "he! also -ontend that the Sandigana!an had no legal asis for ta
.etitioners also assert that the Sandigana!an did not ha#e ?urisdi-tion to annul the Com!romise A"reement e-ause its (ul! =1, 1))* De$ision had alread! e-o3e final and ee-utor!$ oreo#er, as a -ontra-t #alidl! entered into ! the parties, the Com!romise A"reement had inding effe-t and authorit! on the parties thereto e#en if it /ere not ?udi-iall! appro#ed$ &2)'
.etitioners li
no roo3 for dout that all the parties, the Court and the puli-
&=1'
:astl!, petitioners argue that the Com!romise A"reement -an no longer e res-inded e-ause it had alread! een i3ple3ented$ In support of this argu3ent, petitioners -lai3 that on Septe3er 22, 1))+, or four da!s after the signing of the agree3ent, the! deli#ered to the .C66 the original "C"s of the properties -eded to respondent under the agree3ent$ &=2'
espondent, through the OS6, -ontends that the Sandigana!ans April 11, 2000 Resolution /hi-h granted the 3otion to res-ind the Com!romise A"reement and set aside its (ul! =1, 1))* De$ision -annot e the proper su?e-t of a Petition for Certiorari $ A--ording to respondent, petitioners /ere not /ithout an! other re3ed! fro3 the ad#erse ruling of the Sandigana!an, and the! should ha#e gone to trial and reiterated their spe-ial defenses$ &=='
espondent also 3aintains that the Sandigana!an did not err in den!ing petitioners 3otion for #oluntar! inhiition of its 3e3ers e-ause petitioners allegations of partialit! and ias /ere not supported ! -lear and -on#in-ing e#iden-e$
! the .C66 )n *an$ and ! the .resident of the epuli-$ &=5'
Anent the alleged pro-edural infir3ities in the filing of the Motion to Res$ind, respondent asserts that it -o3plied /ith the regle3entar! period for the filing of a petition for relief fro3 ?udg3ent under ule =* and that it is not an initiator! pleading /hi-h is re9uired to e a--o3panied ! a Certifi-ation against Foru3Shopping$ &=%'
espondent disagrees /ith the -ontention of petitioners that the Sandigana!an alread! lost ?urisdi-tion o#er the -ase /hen it rendered its De$ision on the Com!romise A"reement on (ul! =1, 1))* -onsidering that the de-ision is i33ediatel! ee-utor! sin-e there is no appeal fro3 su-h ?udg3ent$ A--ording to respondent, the ules of Court does re-ognie the ?urisdi-tion of the -ourt /hi-h rendered a de-ision o#er a petition for relief fro3 the sa3e de-ision, and does not distinguish /hether the ?udg3ent is ased on the e#iden-e presented or on a -o3pro3ise agree3ent$ oreo#er, as an e-eption to the general rule that the -ourt /hi-h rendered ?udg3ent on the -o3pro3ise -annot 3odif! su-h -o3pro3ise, the -ourt 3a! order 3odifi-ations thereon /hen the parties -onsent to su-h 3odifi-ation or /hen there is a hearing to deter3ine the presen-e or asen-e of #itiated -onsent$ &=+'
&=4'
It is also argued ! respondent that there is no rule or la/ re9uiring that pleadings or 3otions filed ! la/!ers of the go#ern3ent or the .C66 3ust first e appro#ed
espondent adds that the Sandigana!an did not 3a
espondent insists that a -o3pro3ise agree3ent /hi-h is un-ons-ionale, sho-
It is argued ! respondent that /hile it did not present additional e#iden-e after it filed the Motion to Res$ind, it su3itted the 3otion on the asis of all the #erified pleadings and papers on re-ord$ espondent li
espondent also points out that petitioners epressl! ad3itted in their Answer to the Motion to Res$ind that the #alue of the properties /hi-h the! -eded to respondent under the Com!romise A"reement is less than the #alue of the properties retained ! the3$
latter adhered to the +525 ratio adopted ! the .C66 in entering into -o3pro3ise of -ases in#ol#ing the re-o#er! of illgotten /ealth$ It is pointed out ! respondent that the OS6 /as in fa-t initiall! relu-tant to file the 3otion for appro#al of the -o3pro3ise agree3ent /ith the Sandigana!an e-ause the Com!romise A"reement onl! 3entioned the areas of the properties ut -onspi-uousl! failed to 3ention the propert! #alues thereof$ espondent eplained On October 7 "997 the (00 1orwarded to the OS0 a co-y o1 the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent between the e-&blic and the Arganas in SB i+il ase :o. **! with a re&est that the OS0 1ile a ,otion with the Sandiganbayan 1or the a--ro+al o1 the said o,-ro,ise Agree,ent. On :o+e,ber 7 "997 in re-ly to the letter o1 (00 the OS0 with then Solicitor 0eneral Sil+estre ;. Bello 222 as signatory wrote the (00 re&esting it to s&b,it to the OS0 clari1ication on the -ro+ision in the co,-ro,ise agree,ent that the -ro-erties ,entioned therein co,-rise all the se&estered assets s&bect o1 the litigation considering that in the -etition 1iled by the e-&blic it is alleged that the late ,ayor Argana ac&ired no less than 5" OTs
&41'
espondent -lai3s that there /as fraud of an etrinsi- -hara-ter e-ause its representati#es in the .C66 -onni#ed /ith petitioners in -on-ealing the assessed or 3ar
On #ebr&ary "* "998 the OS0 recei+ed a re-ly 1ro, the (00 thro&gh o,,issioner ;er,inio Mendo=a reiterating that the (00 has decided to enter into the co,-ro,ise agree,ent beca&se it belie+es that the e+idence ,ay not be
s&11icient to warrant contin&ing -rosec&tion o1 i+il ase :o. **! against the Arganas. ith res-ect to OS0s re&est 1or clari1ication the (00 1&rnished the OS0 a co-y o1 the re-ort cond&cted by the (00 esearch and >e+elo-,ent >e-art,ent whereby it is stated that there are 34 OTs
o1 the land to be ceded to the e-&blic and those to be retained by the Arganas beca&se o1 the big n&,ber o1 the -arcels o1 the land located ,ainly in M&ntinl&-a Metro Manila and $ag&na and
Finall!, respondent argues that the Com!romise A"reement had not !et een i3ple3ented$ Although petitioners deli#ered the "C"s -o#ering the lots -eded to respondent under the ter3s of the -o3pro3ise on Septe3er 22, 1))+, su-h deli#er! -ould not ha#e the effe-t of i3ple3entation of the Com!romise A"reement e-ause the -ontra-t /as su3itted to the Sandigana!an for appro#al onl! on (une 15, 1))*$ "he Com!romise A"reement epressl! re9uired that in order for it to e effe-ti#e, it 3ust e appro#ed ! the .resident of the epuli- and of the Sandigana!an$ &4='
"he issues for the Courts resolution are as follo/s
18 hether a petition for $ertiorari is the proper re3ed! 28 hether the OS6 and the .C66 la/!ers ha#e authorit! to file the Motion to Res$ind on ehalf of respondent =8 hether the Motion to Res$ind , /hi-h /as treated ! the Sandigana!an as a petition for relief, -o3plied /ith the re9uire3ents of ule =* of the 1))+ ules of Ci#il .ro-edure 48 hether the Sandigana!an a-ted /ith gra#e ause of dis-retion in granting the Motion to Res$ind and in setting aside its De$ision dated (ul! =1, 1))* and 58 hether the 3e3ers of the Sandigana!ans "hird Di#ision should ha#e inhiited the3sel#es fro3 resol#ing petitioners Motion for Re$onsideration$ "he Court shall first ta-
that an order setting the -ase for further pro-eedings, issued after the original ?udg3ent rendered pursuant to a -o3pro3ise agree3ent is set aside, is an interlo-utor! order and is therefore not appealale$ Sin-e no appeal is a#ailale against su-h an order, the proper re3ed! to assail it is a spe-ial -i#il a-tion for $ertiorari $ "he re3ed! ta
.etitioners -ontention that the Motion to Res$ind filed ! the la/!ers of the .C66 and of the OS6 should ha#e een treated ! the Sandigana!an as a 3ere s-rap of paper e-ause the 3otion /as filed /ithout the authorit! of the .C66 )n *an$ and of the .resident of the epuli- has no legal asis$ "here is no re9uire3ent under the la/ that pleadings and 3otions filed ! la/!ers of the go#ern3ent or the .C66 3ust first e appro#ed ! the .C66 )n *an$ and ! the .resident of the .hilippines$ ore i3portantl!, $A$ No$ 1=+) epressl! authories the OS6 to prose-ute -ases of forfeiture of propert! unla/full! a-9uired ! an! pulioffi-er or e3plo!ee$ It 3ust e re3e3ered that it /as the OS6 /hi-h filed Ci#il Case No$ 002% for the forfeiture of petitioners allegedl! illgotten /ealth, and that the Com!romise A"reement et/een petitioners and respondent /as an a3i-ale settle3ent of that -ase$ B! filing an a-tion for res-ission of the Com!romise A"reement ased on etrinsi- fraud, the OS6 /as 3erel! perfor3ing its legal dut! to re-o#er the /ealth purportedl! a3assed unla/full! ! the late a!or Argana during his ter3s as a!or of untinlupa$ "he Motion to Res$ind /as filed pre-isel! e-ause the .C66, as respondents authoried representati#e in the -o3pro3ise, dis-o#ered that the ee-ution of &4%'
the Com!romise A"reement /as attended ! fraud and sought the help of the OS6 /hi-h in turn is the dul! authoried go#ern3ent agen-! to represent respondent in forfeiture -ases under $A$ No$ 1=+)$ @en-e, the Sandigana!an -orre-tl! upheld the authorit! of the OS6, assisted ! the .C66, in filing the Motion to Res$ind. "he Court also finds that there /as no gra#e ause of dis-retion on the part of the Sandigana!an in granting the Motion to Res$ind, /hi-h it treated as a petition for relief fro3 ?udg3ent under ule =* of the 1))+ ules on Ci#il .ro-edure$ Se-tion = thereof pres-ries the periods /ithin /hi-h the petition for relief 3ust e filed Time for filing petition; contents and verification. A -etition -ro+ided 1or in either o1 the -receding sections o1 this &le ,&st be +eri1ied 1iled within sity 6!* days a1ter the -etitioner learns o1 the &dg,ent 1inal order or other -roceeding to be set aside and not ,ore than si 6! ,onths a1ter s&ch &dg,ent or 1inal order was entered or s&ch -roceeding was ta'en and ,&st be acco,-anied with a11ida+its showing the 1ra&d accident ,ista'e or ec&sable negligence relied &-on and the 1acts constit&ting the -etitioners good and s&bstantial ca&se o1 action or de1ense as the case ,ay be.
"he Court has pre#iousl! held that as applied to a ?udg3ent ased on -o3pro3ise, oth the sit! 7%08da! and si 7%83onth regle3entar! periods /ithin /hi-h to file a petition for relief should e re-
i33ediatel! ee-utor! and entered on the date that it /as appro#ed ! the -ourt$ &4+'
Appl!ing the foregoing rule to the present -ase, the sit! 7%08da! period should e -ounted fro3 (ul! =1, 1))*, the date of the Sandigana!an De$ision granting the Motion to A!!ro#e Com!romise A"reement $ "he sitieth da! fro3 (ul! =1, 1))* is Septe3er 2), 1))*$ "he Motion to Res$ind /as filed ! the OS6 onl! on O-toer 5, 1))*, -learl! se#eral da!s after the sitieth da! fro3 the rendition of the (ul! =1, 1))* De$ision. "his not/ithstanding, the Court finds that no gra#e ause -an e as-ried to the Sandigana!an in ad3itting the Motion to Res$ind as a petition for relief /as ti3el! filed$ Although as a general rule, the part! filing a petition for relief 3ust stri-tl! -o3pl! /ith the sit! 7%08da! and si 7%83onth regle3entar! periods under Se-tion =, ule =*, it is not /ithout e-eptions$ "he Court relaed the rule in se#eral -ases and held that the filing of a petition for relief e!ond the sit! %0da! period is not fatal so long as it is filed /ithin the si 7%83onth period fro3 entr! of ?udg3ent$ &4*'
&4)'
&50'
"he Court notes that the filing of the Motion to Res$ind on O-toer 5, 1))* /as indeed se#en da!s e!ond the sit! %0da! period ut still /ell /ithin the si 7%83onth period fro3 entr! of ?udg3ent$ oreo#er, the -ase in#ol#es an alleged fraud -o33itted against the epuli-, and thus ?ustifies the lieral interpretation of pro-edural la/s ! the Sandigana!an$ .etitioners -lai3 that respondent failed to atta-h an affida#it of 3erit to its Motion to Res$ind is elied ! the
re-ord of the -ase$ .etitioners in fa-t atta-hed, as Anne N of their Petition for Certiorari, a -op! of the respondents Motion to Res$ind. "he Affida#it of Merit signed ! Dennis $ "aning-o, the -ounsel of the .C66 in Ci#il Case No$ 002%, /as atta-hed to the Motion to Res$ind. In an! -ase, the Court in Ma"o #. Court of A!!eals held that the asen-e of an affida#it of 3erit does not al/a!s result in the denial of the petition for relief, so long as the fa-ts re9uired to e set out in the affida#it appear in the #erified petition$ "he oath /hi-h for3s part of the petition ele#ates it to the sa3e -ategor! as an affida#it$ &51'
&52'
Neither /as it ne-essar! for respondent to atta-h a Certifi-ation against Foru3Shopping to the Motion to Res$ind. As -orre-tl! held ! the Sandigana!an, the Motion to Res$ind , /hi-h in effe-t /as a petition for relief, is not an initiator! pleading /hi-h re9uires the in-lusion of a Certifi-ation against Foru3Shopping$ Se-tion 2, ule =* re9uires that a petition for relief 3ust e filed /ith the -ourt /hi-h rendered the ?udg3ent or order sought to e set aside, and in the sa3e -ase /herein the ?udg3ent or order /as rendered$ If the -ourt finds that the allegations in the petition for relief are true, it shall set aside the ?udg3ent and tr! the prin-ipal -ase upon the 3erits as if a ti3el! 3otion for ne/ trial had een granted$ Clearl!, then, a petition for relief is not an initiator! pleading in a ne/ -ase /hi-h /ould re9uire the filing ! the petitioner therein of a Certifi-ation of Non Foru3 Shopping$ &5='
"he Court also finds no ause of dis-retion ! the Sandigana!an in den!ing petitioners +r"ent Motion for oluntar( ni'ition$ As eplained in 0utan" #. Court of
A!!eals, the i3port of the rule on #oluntar! inhiition is that the de-ision of a ?udge on /hether or not to inhiit is left to his or her sound dis-retion and -ons-ien-e, ased on his or her rational and logi-al assess3ent of the -ase /here the 3otion for inhiition is filed$ It i3plies that in addition to pe-uniar! interest, relationship, or pre#ious parti-ipation in the 3atter under litigation/hi-h are grounds for 3andator! inhiition under the first paragraph of Se-tion 1, ule 1=+ of the e#ised ules of Courtthere 3ight e other -auses that -ould di3inish the o?e-ti#it! of the ?udge, thus /arranting his or her inhiition$ .etitioners -lai3 of ias and partialit! on the part of the Sandigana!an ?usti-es /ho issued the April 11, 2000 Resolution, e#aluated in light of the resolution itself, is e#identl! 3ore i3agined than real$ "o sa!, as is petitioners /ont, that a ?udge /ho thro/s out a part!s 3otion in the language e3plo!ed ! the Sandigana!an in the 9uestioned Resolution is ne-essaril! pre?udi-ed, is to e indis-ri3inate and pre-ipitate$ &54'
.etitioners assertion that the April 11, 2000 Resolution /as harshl! /orded and e#in-ed pre?udg3ent of the -ase in respondents fa#or is easil! dispro#ed ! a reading of the Resolutionin its entiret!$ As /ill e dis-ussed hereafter, the Sandigana!ans pronoun-e3ent that the Com!romise A"reement /as grossl! disad#antageous and pre?udi-ial to the go#ern3ent is supported ! the fa-ts on re-ord$ In -harging the Sandigana!an /ith fore?udg3ent /hen it said that all it ta
petitioners ha#e ta
Anent the propriet! of the Sandigana!ans nullifi-ation of the Com!romise A"reement on the ground of etrinsi- fraud, the Court holds that no error nor gra#e ause of dis-retion -an e as-ried to the Sandigana!an for ruling that the ee-ution of the Com!romise A"reement /as tainted /ith fraud on the part of petitioners and in -onni#an-e /ith so3e .C66 offi-ials$ A -ir-u3spe-t re#ie/ of the re-ord of the -ase re#eals that fraud, indeed, /as perpetuated upon respondent in the ee-ution of the Com!romise A"reement, the assessed or 3ar
the (00 en banc and the Solicitor 0eneral. The +al&e o1 the -ro-erties was ne+er and not e+en once ,entioned. Th&s in the Me,orand&, o1 >irector Ma&ro ?. strada o1 the (00 esearch and >e+elo-,ent >e-art,ent to the (00 hair,an dated A&g&st "8 "997 the 1ollowing e-osition a--ears ". On ?&ly "* "99! the Arganas s&b,itted a -ro-osal 1or o,-ro,ise Agree,ent 6co-y attached -er Anne ? that wo&ld cede by donation abo&t 3" hectares o1 agric<&ral lands to the go+ern,ent Cero co-ies o1 nine 69 TTs attached therewith en&,erated as 1ollows TT :o. Area in S&are Meters $ocation T/38"3 479*8 #a,y $ag&na T/83"4 474!" /do/ T/83"5 3**** /do/ T/83"! 4**** /do/ T/83"7 3**** /do/ T/4"*4 **** /do/ T/4"*! 3855* /do/ T/4"*8 3"!"8 /do/ T/4*44 ""373!" San 2sidro D Banilan 883355 (angil $ag&na 3*!53 S. Meters 3*!53 ;ectares Another big tract o1 land located at Mati'iw (angil $ag&na consisting o1 "3"95* hectares co+ered by TT :o. T/4**9 -er Anne E ,ay be considered 1or incl&sion in the -ro-osed co,-ro,ise settle,ent. The reason 1or this is that this land is
being eyed by the >A 1or distrib&tion &nder the A(. As a whole the go+ern,ent ,ay be able to ac&ire abo&t 3!".9*3 hectares o1 land e&i+alent to 75."% o1 the 48".774 hectares o1 land o1 se&estered real estate -ro-erty belonging to the Arganas and other owners. ;owe+er o1 the 48".774 hectares co+ered by a se&estration order the late Mayor Argana owns abo&t 4*9.5*8"7 hectares and -ossibly the heirs are willing to cede 3!".9*3 hectares which is e&i+alent to 88.38% retaining 47.5887 hectares or "".!% o1 what they owned.
c #oreclosed by $os Baos &ral Ban'
5.985! has. ".4%
d Owned by Other (ersons
39.!48!5 has. 8.3%
TOTA$
"**.**%
48".774 has.
. @A$FAT2O: " As -resented in Anne $ -age "3 the total area o1 real estate -ro-erty se&estered aggregated to 48".774 hectares acco&nted as 1ollows
Total Area Se&estered
"**.**%
48".774
Acco&nted as #ollows
a owned by Mayor Mai,ino Argana
4*9.5*8"7 has. 75."%
b Owned by his Brothers D Sisters
!.!3"8 has. 9.88%
O&t o1 the total area o1 48".774 hectares co+ered by a se&estration order abo&t 4*9.5*8"7 hectares are owned by the late Mayor Argana. The other lots are owned by his brothers and sisters 6!.!3"8 hectares 1oreclosed by $os Baos &ral Ban' 65.985! hectares and registered and
-ercentage share o1 the go+ern,ent wo&ld be 88.38 % and the re,aining "".! % ,ay be retained by the heirs o1 the late Mayor Argana e&i+alent to 47.58787 hectares. #. SFMMAG
5.53% !.!3"8 has.
d #oreclosed by $os Baos &ral Ban'
The 1a,ily o1 the late Mayor Mai,ino A. Argana o11ered to cede to the go+ern,ent a total o1 3*.!553 hectares o1 land co+ered by nine 69 TTs. Another -ro-erty howe+er consisting o1 "3".95* hectares ,ay be considered 1or incl&sion which wo&ld increase to 3!".9*3 hectares o1 land that ,ay be ceded to the go+ern,ent.
".4% 5.985! has.
e Owned by Other (ersons
Total
8.3%
"**.**%
39.!48!5 ha
48".774 h
2n the e+ent that the 3!".9*3 hectares are 1inally considered and acce-table by both -arties the (00 and the Arganas the 48".774 hectares o1 se&estered -ro-erty wo&ld be acco&nted as 1ollows
Total Area Se&estered
;owe+er since the late Mayor Argana owns 4*9.5*8"7 hectares se&estered and ,ay -ossibly cede 3!".9*3 hectares the -ercentage share o1 the go+ern,ent wo&ld be 88.38% o1 the 4*9.5*8"7 hectaresact&ally registered in his "**.**% 48".774 has. na,e and his children. 0. OMM:>AT2O:
Acco&nted as 1ollows
a To be ceded the 0o+ern,ent
b To be retained by the late Mayor Arganas ;eirs
c Owned by his Brothers D Sisters
75."%
9.88%
The (00 wanted to reco+er as ,&ch as it co&ld and as 1ast as -ossible while the Arganas wanted to b&y -eace witho&t 3!".9*3 has.ad,itting g&ilt. 2n order to a+oid 1&rther lengthy litigation and to -&t an end to an al,ost ten/year &nresol+ed se&estration iss&e and to e-edite reco+ery so that the re,aining assets ,ay be &sed to contrib&te to the national reco+ery the 47.78787 has.3*.!53 hectares o1 land co+ered by nine 69 TTs 6:os. T/ 38"3 T/38"4 T/38"5 T/38"! T/38"7 T/4"*4 T/4"*! T/4"*8 and T/4*44 o11ered by the Arganas be 1a+orably considered on condition that another real estate -ro-erty co+ered by TT
:o. T/4**9 located at Mati'iw (angil $ag&na consisting o1 "3".95* hectares be incl&ded and to be ceded to the go+ern,ent. All other lots se&estered sho&ld be 1reed 1ro, the se&estration order. As a whole the go+ern,ent stands to ac&ire abo&t 3!".9*3 hectares o&t o1 the 4*9.5*8"7 hectares registered in the na,e o1 S-s. Mai,ino A. Argana #>O and their children e&i+alent to 88.38%. The re,aining "".!% or 47.58787 hectares will be retained by the latter. #or the consideration o1 the o,,ission. Signed MAFO ?. STA>A 6 Record, v. 6, pp. 776-78) (Underli ning supplied) .... The +al&e o1 the -ro-erties ,&st ha+e been raised or e+en disc&ssed d&ring the se+eral years that the -ro-erties were held &nder se&estration. Get not e+en the (00 bothered to -rod&ce any ta declaration assess,ent or a--raisal to show the assessed or 1air ,ar'et +al&e o1 the -ro-erties. . . . . Again in another Me,orand&, o1 >irector Ma&ro ?. strada to (00 o&nsel dgardo $. Eilay'o dated #ebr&ary "988 the -ro-erties were listed according to the na,e o1 the owner certi1icate o1 title area in s&are ,eters location and
-ercentages in relation to the whole. Ob+io&s 1ro, the listing is the absence o1 a col&,n to indicate the +al&e o1 the -ro-erties or their classi1ication. . . . The -ercentage based solely on area was clearly e,-hasi=ed as shown by the 1ollowing -ortions o1 said Me,orand&, O&t o1 the 4*9.5*8"7 hectares registered in the na,e o1 S-o&ses Mai,o A. Argana and >onata A. Argana as -resented abo+e 3!".9*3 hectares co+ering ele+en 6"" TTs are to be ceded to the go+ern,ent &nder the co,-ro,ise agree,ent signed by Argana and the o,,ission in the latter -art o1 "997. The 3!".9*3 hectares to be ceded to the go+ern,ent is e&i+alent to 75." % o1 the total areao1 48".774 hectares as -resented below 6 Record, v. 6, p. 7!" 6underlining supplied As a whole there are 34 TTs
Agree,ent was 1air reasonable and ad+antageo&s to the 0o+ern,ent. . . .
-rotecting the interest o1 the go+ern,ent they conni+ed at its de1eatal,ost. 6,-hasis in the original.
. . . hat was -roected to be a 75%/5% ratio was in reality a **."5%/99.85% ratio with 99.85% going to the Arganas. This is &nconscionable and i,,oral. And since it res<s in a transaction grossly disad+antageo&s and i,,oral to the go+ern,ent it is against the law as being +iolati+e o1 Section 36g o1 e-&blic Act 3*"9.
It is e#ident fro3 the foregoing that the ruling of the Sandigana!an is grounded on fa-ts and on the la/$ "he Court sees no reason to depart fro3 the -on-lusions dra/n ! the Sandigana!an on the asis of its findings, espe-iall! -onsidering that the three ?usti-es -o3prising the Sandigana!ans "hird Di#ision -ondu-ted a thorough ea3ination of the do-u3ents su3itted ! the parties to this -ase, heard the testi3onies of the parties /itnesses and oser#ed their deport3ent during the hearing on the Motion to Res$ind $
... 2n the instant case 1ra&d o1 an etrinsic character eists beca&se the re-resentati+es o1 -lainti11 e-&blic in the (00 conni+ed with de1endants in hiding the assessed or ,ar'et +al&es o1 the -ro-erties in+ol+ed so as to ,a'e it a--ear that the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent adhered to the 75%/5% ratio ado-ted by the (00 in entering into co,-ro,ise o1 cases in+ol+ing the reco+ery o1 ill/gotten wealth. Thro&gh their in1idelity those in the (00 who handled or were closely in+ol+ed with the case d&ring the last days o1 the -re+io&s ad,inistration 1ra&d&lently ga+e the o,-ro,ise Agree,ent a se,blance o1 1airness and o11icial acce-tability. They sold -lainti11 e-&blic down the ri+er by entering into an agree,ent grossly disad+antageo&s to the go+ern,ent. #or while -lainti11 e-&blic got **."5% 6**."5*74 o1 the esti,ated +al&e o1 all the -ro-erties in+ol+ed in this case de1endants al,ost ran away with 99.85% 699.845! o1 their +al&e. This is -atently &n1air. 2t is no co,-ro,ise b&t a +irt&al sell/o&t. 2t co&ld not ha+e been -&lled o11 witho&t the conni+ance or coll&sion o1 those res-onsible 1or the case in the (00. 2nstead o1
&5%'
oreo#er, it is an estalished rule that the State -annot e estopped ! the 3ista
)$ERE"ORE, the petition is DISISSED for la-< of 3erit$ "he Resolution dated April 11, 2000 of the Sandigana!an granting the Motion to Res$ind Com!romise A"reement and to %et Aside &ud"ment '( Com!romise and setting the -ase for pretrial, as /ell as the Order dated Feruar! 22, 2001 den!ing petitioners 3otion for re-onsideration, are here! AFFIED$
Costs against petitioners$ SO ORDERED.
