Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

CONCURRING OPINION - CALLEJO, SR., J.: G.R. NO. 149802, G.R. NO. 150320, G.R. NO. 150367, G.R. NO. 153207 and G.R. NO. 153459 - ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. - 479 SCRA 1; 515 Phil. 1

CONCURRING OPINION - CALLEJO, SR., J.: G.R. NO. 149802, G.R. NO. 150320, G.R. NO. 150367, G.R. NO. 153207 and G.R. NO. 153459 - ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL. - 479 SCRA 1; 515 Phil. 1

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

(479 SCRA 1; 515 Phil. 1)

[G.R. NO. 149802 - January 20, 2006]

ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO, represented by IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, and IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 150320 - January 20, 2006]

ALFONSO T. YUCHENCGO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, FOURTH DIVISION, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO represented by IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, and IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 150367 - January 20, 2006]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS (represented by its Administrator, the Bureau of Internal Revenue), IMELDA R. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO (represented by its Administratrix, IMELDA O. COJUANGCO), IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, and Y REALTY CORPORATION, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 153207 - January 20, 2006]

ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO AND Y REALTY CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ESTATE OF RAMON U. COJUANGCO represented by IMELDA O COJUANGCO, and IMELDA O. COJUANGCO, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 153459 - January 20, 2006]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioner, v. ESTATE OF FERDINAND E. MARCOS, IMELDA R. MARCOS, IMELDA (IMEE) R. MARCOS-MANOTOC, TOMAS MANOTOC, IRENE R. MARCOS-ARANETA, GREGORIO MA. ARANETA, III, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR., IMELDA COJUANGCO, ESTATE OF RAMON COJUANGCO (represented by the Administratrix, IMELDA COJUANGCO), PRIME HOLDINGS, INC., ALFONSO T. YUCHENGCO, AND Y. REALTY CORPORATION, Respondents.


CONCURRING OPINION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:


I concur with the majority opinion penned by Madam Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 153459 to the extent that it prays for the reconveyance to the Republic of the Philippines of 111,415 shares of stock of the Philippine Telecommunication Investment Corp. (PTIC) registered in the name of Prime Holdings Inc. (PHI).

PTIC is the biggest stockholder of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT), owning 28% of its outstanding shares or totaling approximately 625 million PLDT shares valued at approximately 1.6 billion pesos.

The shares of stock of PTIC are registered in the following names: 111,415 (46% of total shares) are held by PHI; 76,779 were held by Ramon Cojuangco during his lifetime; and 21,525 are held by Imelda Cojuangco (44% of total shares).

In its Amended Complaint for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, Restitution and Damages, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), alleges, inter alia, that these PTIC shares of stock held by PHI and the Cojuangcos belong in truth and in fact to the Marcoses. In other words, PHI and the Cojuangcos are mere dummies/conduits/nominees of the Marcoses who effectively owned PTIC and, necessarily, the disputed shares of stock of PLDT.

Pursuant to its mandate, the PCGG filed the complaint for reversion of the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth including these PLDT shares of stock to the Republic.

In their respective Answers, PHI and the Cojuangcos vehemently deny that the Marcos family owned the disputed shares of stock. PHI, in particular, asserted that the members of the family of the late Ramon Cojuangco own all the outstanding shares in PHI.

Imelda Marcos, on the other hand, admitted in her Answer that they hold beneficial ownership over these shares of stock. She maintained that their wealth was lawfully acquired.

Alfonso Yuchengco and Y Corp. filed a complaint in intervention seeking to recover from the Cojuangcos their shares of stock and asserting ownership thereof as against the Republic. Yuchengco claims that the Marcos regime compelled him into giving up 6% of PTIC shares formerly owned by Gregorio Romulo and Leonides Virata and deprived him of exercising his option to buy General Telephone and Electronics, Inc.'s (GTE's) 25% equity in PTIC. This 25% equity in PTIC was subsequently acquired by PHI.

After protracted hearings, the Sandiganbayan rendered the assailed Partial Decision dated May 6, 2002 dismissing the Republic's complaint insofar as it seeks to recover the PLDT shares.

The petition in G.R. No. 153459 is filed by the Republic assailing the Partial Decision. Yuchengco and Y Corp. also assail the said Partial Decision in their petition in G.R. No. 153207.

The petition in G.R. No. 150367 is filed by the Republic assailing the Sandiganbayan's Order denying its Respectful Motion for Additional Time to Complete the Presentation of Evidence. The petitions in G.R. NOS. 149802 and 150320 were filed by Yuchengco and Y Corp. assailing the Orders of the Sandiganbayan denying their motions to suspend trial pending discovery proceedings and cancellation of hearings. The Sandiganbayan declared them to have waived their right to present evidence.

In the Partial Decision, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the Republic failed to prove that the PLDT shares are part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses. Consequently, it affirmed the PHI's and the Cojuangco's ownership over the disputed shares. The Sandiganbayan held that "almost all the documents offered by the Republic are photocopies;" thus, the latter failed to provide "such proof of authenticity or reliability:"
We are therefore constrained to find that the Republic's documentary evidence, to the extent that they are mere photocopies, or are otherwise unidentified, unauthenticated, and constitutive of hearsay, may not be justifiably relied upon by this Court, nor may their integrity be assumed, for their purpose of establishing the facts, or for supporting the theory pursued by the Republic.

More particularly, there is no competent evidence to show that defendant Ferdinand Marcos had any hand in PTIC, or in the acquisition by the defendants Cojuangco in their own names of any of their shares therein. There is no competent evidence to establish or even infer, the existence of a relationship of trust between the defendants Cojuangco and defendant Ferdinand Marcos with PTIC, or to establish that presidential concessions, benefits, or other incentives that could have improved the financial and operational situation of PTIC, PLDT, and PHI, were accorded said companies by defendant Ferdinand Marcos. Accordingly, there is no competent evidence to prove the Republic's allegation that the PLDT shares herein were ill-gotten.

On the other hand, there is evidence for the defense which establishes the fact that all shares in PHI were vested upon defendant Ramon U. Cojuangco and his family. Thus documents were offered in evidence plainly naming and identifying Ramon U. Cojuangco and members of his family as assignees of PHI shares, and in the absence of blank Deeds of Assignment and/or Deeds of trust executed by stockholders of PHI, said corporation may not be said to have been organized for defendant Marcos's benefit. To reiterate, it is the existence of such blank Deeds of Assignment and/or Deeds of Trust that distinguishes corporations asserted to be owned by defendant Ferdinand Marcos from the others.

More importantly, with the assignment of PHI shares specifically to defendant Ramon U. Cojuangco and members of his family, defendant Ferdinand Marcos lost the essential legal instrumentation or mechanism upon which he could have claimed the shares in ownership or compel the reconveyance thereof to him.

Likewise, there is, by the evidence, sufficient basis to conclude that the defendants Cojuangco acquired the shares in their names in PTIC as the actual and beneficial owners thereof. In fact, based on plaintiff's own offered document, it is clear and indubitable that defendants Cojuangco were original stockholders of PTIC, hence held some of their shares therein as early as 1967. These shares have been claimed by them in actual and beneficial ownership. When defendant Ramon U. Cojuangco died on May 6, 1984, the 76,779 PTIC shares registered in his name were declared as part of his estate. 1
The Sandiganbayan, in fine, ruled that the Republic failed to prove by preponderant evidence that PTIC as well as the disputed shares in PLDT belonged to the Marcoses.

The majority opinion further adds the following relevant facts:

PHI was incorporated in 1977 by Jose D. Campos (son of Jose Yao Campos), Gapud, Renato Lirio, Ernesto Abalos and Gervacio Gaviola, with 400 shares each in their names. These incorporators were also the officers of PHI.

Meanwhile, in 1977, 54,349 shares of PTIC, originally owned by GTE, a US corporation, were acquired by Ramon Cojuangco, who was then PTIC President and member of its board of directors.

In 1978, together with Luis Revilla, another stockholder of PTIC, Ramon Cojuangco ceded a total of 111,415 PTIC shares to PHI through several deeds of assignment.

In 1981, Gapud and Jose D. Campos later assigned all their shares in PHI (400 shares each) to Cojuangco and Oscar Africa, respectively, through separate deeds of assignment.

On that same year, Cojuangco and Africa became directors of PHI and its President and Vice-President, respectively.

In 1983, Africa transferred his 400 PHI shares to Antonio Cojuangco and Trinidad Cojuangco Yulo. Also, Lirio, Abalos and Gaviola, remaining incorporators of PHI, transferred their 1,200 shares in PHI to members of the Cojuangco family through deeds of assignment. In effect, the Cojuangcos acquired full control of PHI.

Deposition of Campos

Campos was a Marcos crony. He categorically stated that he organized corporations for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos. He gave a list of these corporations which included PHI. It was his policy that "whenever such corporation is organized for and on behalf of the intended beneficiaries, I execute and require all my said business associates to execute a Deed of Trust or Deed of Assignment duly signed in favor of unnamed beneficiary and to deliver the original copy thereof to the former President."

In 1979, he suffered a severe heart attack; thus, he transferred to Gapud the management of these corporations.

When categorically asked during his deposition whether the policy of executing deeds of trust or assignment in favor of an "unnamed beneficiary" and delivering them to then Pres. Marcos was followed in the case of PHI, Campos replied that "all the corporations I organized " that was the standard policy " that we surrendered direct to President Marcos."

These statements were corroborated by the testimony of de Guzman on cross-examination to the effect that he received instructions from Campos to organize PHI and thereafter, he (Campos) told him that it was Gapud who would be giving instructions regarding PHI.

The foregoing statements clearly show that PHI was one of the corporations organized by Campos for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos and that in all the corporations he organized, it was the standard policy that they surrendered [a deed of trust or assignment] direct to the latter. In other words, PHI was beneficially owned by Pres. Marcos.

Deposition of Gapud

Gapud was one of the incorporators of PHI and a close associate of Campos. When asked whether he knew the beneficial owners of PHI, Gapud answered that what he knew was that "the shares of stock and/or assignments endorsed in blank were delivered to Pres. Marcos by Mr. Campos." Also, that the deed of assignment in blank covering his (Gapud's) 400 shares in PHI was delivered by Campos to Pres. Marcos. However, he affirmed that he subsequently transferred these shares to Ramon Cojuangco through a deed of assignment.

Gapud's testimony corroborates Campos' statement that PHI was organized for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos. There is no contradiction between Gapud's claims that blank deed of assignment covering his shares in PHI was delivered to Pres. Marcos and, later, he executed a deed of assignment covering these same shares in favor of Cojuangco.

I agree with the disquisitions of the majority that Gapud's statement relating to the subsequent execution of deeds of assignment to Cojuangco and his kin does not detract from the prior delivery of blank deeds to the former President, especially so in this case where, by Gapud's own recounting, he and his co-incorporators executed the 1981 and 1983 deeds of assignment with the knowledge and authorization of the same person to whom the earlier deeds were delivered - President Marcos.
VICE CONSUL HERNANDEZ. –

So the aforesaid Deeds of Assignments obviously were with the knowledge and upon authorization and order of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, is this correct?

MR. GAPUD. Considering that Prime Holdings, Inc. was incorporated upon the instructions of former President Marcos, obviously all the nominees would act only upon his authorization. That's my answer.
As gleaned from the deposition of Gapud, there is practically no consideration for the transfer by Gapud of his shares to Cojuangco:
CONSUL AGUILUCHO. How much did you receive as consideration for assigning your shares to him?

MR GAPUD. The consideration for the assignment was that upon my assignment, first, my fiduciary responsibilities as nominee were extinguished, and secondly, I had transferred and extinguished any and all liabilities under the subscription payable.
Deposition of de Guzman

De Guzman was the Corporate Secretary of PHI. In his testimony, de Guzman identified the original incorporators of PHI, namely, Gapud, Lirio, Gaviola and Abalos, as close associates of Campos. The other incorporator, Jose D. Campos, Jr., was the latter's son. The office of PHI was within the premises of the United Laboratories, another corporation controlled by Campos.

Based on the foregoing, there is nary any evidence on Cojuangco's role in the organization of PHI to substantiate the thesis that the same was beneficially owned by Cojuangco. On the other hand, the Republic's thesis that President Marcos is the beneficial owner of PHI "is deduced from established facts which, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability." Preponderance of evidence lies with the Republic.

On the basis of the evidence on record, I am convinced that that President Marcos owned PHI and all the incorporators thereof acted under his direction and that once this is acknowledged, the following conclusions inevitably follow:
  1. Cojuangco was elected President and took over the management of PHI on 1981 with the cooperation of the Marcos nominees who, it must be emphasized, still held the majority stockholding as of that date;

  2. As the remaining incorporators on the Board divested their shares only in 1983, Cojuangco managed a Marcos-controlled corporation for at least two years;

  3. The simultaneous divestment of shares by the three remaining incorporators on the Board to Cojuangco's close relatives in 1983 were with the knowledge and authorization of their Principal - President Marcos.
The preponderance of evidence lies with the Republic with respect to the 111,415 shares of PTIC registered in the name of PHI. Such evidence consists of the statement of Campos as corroborated by the statements of Gapud and De Guzman.

For clarity, the ownership of the outstanding PTIC shares are divided as follows:
  • 111,415 shares are held by the Prime Holdings Inc. (PHI);
  • 76,779 were held by Ramon Cojuangco during his lifetime and;
  • 21,525 are held by Imelda Cojuangco.
Thus, 46% of the total shares are held by PHI while the other 44% are held by the Cojuangcos. However, as shown earlier, the Cojuangco family eventually acquired control of PHI when, in 1983, its incorporators transferred their shares to the former.

With respect to the incorporation of PHI, the following allegations in the Sworn Statement dated March 21, 1986 of Campos are enlightening:
  1. My relationship with the then President Ferdinand E. Marcos dates back to the time when he was first elected as Congressman of the then Philippine Congress. The relationship continued when he was then elected President of the Republic of the Philippines. Thereafter I assisted in the organization and acquisition of some business ventures for the former President. Following his directive I instructed my lawyers and requested the assistance of my other business associates and officers of the company to organize, establish and manage these business ventures for and on behalf of the President;

  2. The companies that we have organized for and on behalf of former President Marcos are listed in Annex "A" attached herewith;

  3. In the organization, administration and management of the abovenamed corporations, it was my policy that whenever such a corporation is organized for and on behalf of the intended beneficiaries, I execute and I require all my said business associates to execute a Deed of Trust or Deed of Assignment duly signed in favour of an unnamed beneficiary and to deliver the original copy thereof to the former President. It is in fact my policy and procedure that we disclaim completely any interest in any of such businesses and make it clear to the former President that we hold such interests on his behalf;

  4. In the latter part of 1979 suffered a severe heart attack and was confined in the intensive care unit of the Makati Medical Center. x x x

  5. Occasioned by the withdrawal of my active participation in the management of the abovenamed corporations, Mr. Rolando C. Gapud who was my financial consultant took over the direct responsibility of directing, managing and administering all the activities of the said corporations. However, since Mr. Gapud did not have the administrative staff to efficiently manage the businesses, he requested me that all the employees and officers involved in the organization should continue to remain in the companies even only in a nominal capacity considering that they had previously disclaimed any interest therein. It is for this reason that Rolando C. Gapud and my business associates, namely, Mariano K. Tan, Jose D. Campos, Jr., Luciano E. Salazar, Francisco G. De Guzman, Guillermo C. Gastrock, Ernesto S. Abalos, Gervasio T. Gaviola, Rodolfo Dimaano, Manuel Engwa, Lourdes F. Florentino, Florentin, Daniel Q. Tan and Elizabeth S. Campos continued to be named stockholders in these corporations although they did not have any financial interest therein. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).
Annex A referred to by Campos included PHI.

In his Sworn Statement dated December 18, 1995, Campos further averred:
3. In your Sworn Statement, page 2, you stated that with respect to the corporations you held in trust for President Marcos, it was your "policy" that whenever such a corporation was organized, you executed, and you required all your business associates to execute, A Deed of Trust or Deed of Assignment in favor of an "unnamed beneficiary", and delivered the originals thereof to President Marcos. x x x Was this "policy" followed in the case of [PHI]? x x x

ANSWER: All the corporations I organized " that was the standard policy " that we surrendered direct to President Marcos.

3.1 Was it also your policy to deliver to President Marcos the stock certificates that you and your business associates held in trust for him?

ANSWER: Yes, Ma'm.

3.2 If stock certificates that you and your business associates held in trust for President Marcos were delivered to him was it also your policy to have the stock certificates indorsed in blank? Were the stock certificates in {PHI} indorsed in blank?

ANSWER: If there are certificates issued in Prime Holdings, it is the same way it was delivered to him. If there is such certificate issued, it is indorsed in blank and follow the same pattern for all the corporations. Whatever we have decided, we deliver, sign in blank and deliver to him.

3.3. Did you and your business associates deliver to President Marcos the stock certificates issued by [PHI]" If not, what did you and your business associates do with the stock certificates?

ANSWER: If Prime Holdings certificates have been issued, as I said Ma'm, it is delivered to the President.

4. In your Sworn Statement, page 2, you also stated that "it is in fact my policy and procedure that we disclaim completely any interest" in the business organized for President Marcos and "make it clear to the former President that we held such interests in his behalf" . . . . Was this "policy and procedure" followed in the case of [PHI]? xxx

ANSWER: The policy is followed by every corporation that we organized for the President.

4.1 Did you and your business associates also "disclaim completely any interest" in ... (PTIC) and "make it clear to the former President that we hold such interests on his behalf"?

ANSWER: Ma'm, as I said, I don't know that Prime Holdings has such holdings of the PTIC shares that you referred to. ("Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The admissions of Campos are judicial; hence, conclusive on him and his successors-in-interest. The same can be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made. 2All proofs submitted by him and his successors contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether objection is interposed by him or not. 3The admissions of Campos are even admissions against interest, and, hence, trustworthy. For their part, the Cojuangcos failed to allege, much less show, that the admissions of Campos were made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.

It bears stressing that under Executive Order No. 14, 4 the quantum of evidence required in cases involving forfeiture proceedings is preponderance of evidence, i.e., "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The term "preponderance of evidence" means the weight, credit and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the terms "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of the credible evidence." Preponderance of the evidence means evidence which is offered in opposition thereto." 5

The testimony of Campos, as corroborated by Gapud and de Guzman, that he organized PHI for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos should be accorded great probative weight. The incorporators of the said corporation were close associates of Campos and, in fact, Gapud admitted that he did not really own the shares registered in his name and that the deed of assignment covering these shares was delivered by Campos to Pres. Marcos.

Reliance by the dissenting opinion on the deeds of assignment purportedly executed by the PHI incorporators in favor of Cojuangco family members is misplaced. The fact that in these deeds of assignments the Cojuangcos were specifically named, does not constitute proof that the beneficial ownership of PHI belonged to the Cojuangcos although they (deeds of assignment with specific names) deviated from the "standard practice" mentioned by Campos of delivering invariably blank deeds of assignment to Pres. Marcos.

To reiterate, there is no evidence at all that there was a consideration for the transfer by the incorporators of their shares in favor of the Cojuangcos. As Gapud stated in his deposition:
CONSUL AGUILUCHO: How much did you receive as consideration for assigning your shares to him [referring to Ramon Cojuangco]?

MR. GAPUD: The consideration for the assignment was that upon my assignment, first, my fiduciary responsibilities as nominee were extinguished, and secondly, I had transferred and extinguished any and all liabilities under the subscription payable.
This lack of consideration renders the acquisition by the Cojuangcos of the said PHI shares of no juridical effect.

It also appears that the transfer by these incorporators of their shares in favor of Cojuangco was made with the knowledge and consent of then Pres. Marcos. As Gapud further averred in his deposition:
VICE CONSUL HERNANDEZ: Can we note your objection and let Mr. Gapud answer.

So the aforesaid Deeds of Assignments obviously will be with the knowledge and upon authorization and order of former Pres. Ferdinand E. Marcos, is this correct?

MR. GAPUD: Considering that Prime Holdings, Inc. was incorporated upon the instructions of former President Marcos, obviously all the nominees would act only upon his authorization. That's my answer.

VICE CONSUL HERNANDEZ: So the deposition ends.
Given the lack of consideration and the authority given by Pres. Marcos therefor, it would thus appear that the deeds of assignment executed by the PHI incorporators in favor of Ramon Cojuangco and his family were forged for the purpose of conveying management and control of PHI to the latter who likewise acted for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos.

In fine, the preponderance of evidence lies with the Republic insofar as the 111,415 shares in PTIC held by PHI are concerned. Again, the evidence shows that PHI was organized for and in behalf of Pres. Marcos. Thus, the 111,415 shares in PTIC, and necessarily the corresponding shares in PLDT, held by PHI must be reconveyed to the Republic as part of the Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth.

ACCORDINGLY, I vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 153459 to the extent that it prays for the reconveyance to the Republic of 111,415 shares of stock of PTIC registered in the name of PHI.

Endnotes:


1 Assailed Partial Decision, pp. 32-33.

2 Rule 129, Section 4, Revised Rules of Evidence.

3Cunanan v. Amparo, 80 Phil. 229.

4 Executive Order No. 14 provides that "civil suits for restitution, reparation of damages, forfeiture proceedings provided for under Republic Act No. 1379, or any other civil action under the Civil Code or other existing laws, in connection with (said EO Nos. 1 and 2) may be filed separately from and proceed independently of any criminal proceedings and may be proved by preponderance of evidence.

5Republic v. Court Appeals, 204 SCRA 160.

Top of Page