PCGG vs Sandiganbayan Corporation Law Case DigestFull description
leg med
[Kaye D.] Case under “State Immunity” Republic of the Philippines [represented] by the Presidential Commission on !ood !o"ernment #PC!!$ "s. Sandi%anbayan #&nd Di"ision$ and Roberto S. 'enedicto #( )arch &**($ +,+ SCR- / !arcia0 1. 2-C3S '-CK!R456D7 '-CK!R456D72IRS3 2IRS3 S3-!8. S3-!8. PC!! issued issued 9rits 9rits placin% placin% under se:uestrati se:uestration on all
•
business enterprises0 entities and other properties;real and personal;o9ned or re%istered in the name of pri"ate respondent 'enedicto. o -mon% other thin%s 9ere his &&< shares shares in 6e%ros 6e%ros 4ccidental !olf and Country o
Club #64!CC$ at P=*0 ***.** 7per. In 4ct./,(0 a corporate policy chan%e 9as implemented assessin% a monthly
o
memb member ersh ship ip due due at P=* P=*.* .**7 *7sh shar aree and and in )ar )ar /,< /,<00 it 9as 9as chan chan%e %ed d to P&=*.**7share. PC!! did not pay the correspondin% monthly membership fee 9hich totaled to P&0/=/0+<.**. Due to these delin:uent shares0 an auction sale by 64!CC 9as pro>ected.
S8C4 S8C46D 6D S3S3-!8. !8. In / //* /*00 Re Repub publi licc an and d 'e 'ene nedi dict cto o en ente tere red d in into to a Co Comp mpro romi mise se
•
-%reement. PC!! a%reed to lift the se:uestration of the said &&< shares. -ccordin% to the PC!!0 it is 9ithin 'enedicto?s capacity to ac:uire the same out of his income from business and e@ercise of profession0 and that sub>ect shares could not ha"e been illA %otten. In //&0 it 9as appro"ed by Sandi%anbayan. 3BIRD S3-!8. In 2ebruary //+0 'enedicto filed a motion to release the shares and be
•
returned to him or that a payment of &&< shares at P=*0 ***.**7share be made by PC!! as part of the Compromise -%reement. 3his 9as %ranted by Sandi%anbayan but it has to be placed under the custody of its Cler of Court. o
4n ( December //+0 Sandi%anbayan directed PC!! to deli"er the shares to the Cler of Court but it failed to comply 9ithout sho9in% any >ustifiable %round. Republic in"oes state immunity from suit because suit because PC!! is a %o"ernment % o"ernment entity [6' the position of PC!! as a %o"ernment %o"e rnment entity 9as not discussed in the case]
ISS58 •
Ehether or not Republic?s in"ocation of state immunity from suit is tenable.
R5FI6! •
640 PC!! cannot be benefited of state immunity. Ehen the State0 throu%h its duly authoriGed officers0 taes the initiati"e in a suit a%ainst a pri"ate party0 it descends to the le"el of a pri"ate indi"idual thereby 9ai"in% its ri%ht to immunity from suit. In the present case0 the state itself is the petitioner.
•
-lso0 by enterin% into a Compromise -%reement 9ith pri"ate respondent 'enedicto0 petitioner Republic thereby stripped itself of its immunity from suit and placed itself in the same le"el of its ad"ersary. Ehen the State enters into contract0 throu%h its officers or a%ents0 in furtherance of a le%itimate aim and purpose and pursuant to constitutional le%islati"e authority0 9hereby mutual or reciprocal benefits accrue and ri%hts and obli%ations arise therefrom0 the State may be sued e"en 9ithout its e@press consent0 precisely because by enterin% into a contract the so"erei%n descends to the le"el of the citiGen. Its consent to be sued is implied from the "ery act of enterin% into such contract0 breach of 9hich on its part %i"es the correspondin% ri%ht to the other party to the a%reement.
