Ligots fight 2nd forfeiture case

former military comptroller Jacinto Ligot and his wife Erlinda INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—Retired Lt. Gen. Jacinto Ligot and his extended family are fighting a second forfeiture case by government at the Sandiganbayan involving their alleged unlawfully acquired properties valued at P55.6 million.

An April 21 memorandum which Ligot et al. submitted to the antigraft court’s 2nd Division cited at least three “affirmative and special defenses” in their bid to have the civil case dismissed.

These are the petitioner state’s splitting of a single cause of action, the pendency of another action between the same parties for the same cause, and the government’s failure to submit a faithful and accurate certification of nonforum shopping.

Ligot’s corespondents in the second forfeiture case are his wife Erlinda, children Paulo, Riza and Miguel, brother-in-law Edgardo Yambao, and his wife’s cousin, Gilda Velasquez.

The memorandum said that a similar action which the government filed on Sept. 13, 2005, seeking the return of P135.3 million was still pending with the antigraft court’s 4th Division.

Among the assets sought for forfeiture in the first case are a house in Anaheim, California, worth P33.372 million, an Essensa East Forbes Condominium Lawton Tower unit in Taguig (P25 million), a poultry building and rest house  in Malaybalay (P4.5 milion), and two condominium units at the Paseo Park View Tower 2 in Makati (P7.8 million).

In the second petition, the properties sought to be forfeited include bank deposits and investments with the Citicorp Financial Services and Insurance Brokerage Phil. by Velasquez worth P52.5 million, a dollar placement with the Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) by Yambao (P1.1 million) and an investment with the Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loan Association Inc. by Riza (P419,323.60).

The respondents in the second case said the petitioner government was guilty of splitting a single cause of action against them, in violation of the Rules of Court.

Splitting a single cause of action is the act of dividing a single or indivisible cause of action into several parts or claims and instituting two or more actions upon them.

The respondents claimed that a single cause of action cannot be split up or divided in order to be made the subject of two or more different actions.

They said the Rules of Court provides that if two or more suits are instituted on the basis of the same cause of action, the filing of one or a judgment upon the merits in any one can be a ground for the dismissal of the others.

This provision, they said, is meant to avoid harassment and vexation to the defendant and to avoid multiplicity of suits, otherwise there would be no end to litigation.

The alleged bank deposits and investment accounts that are the subject of the second forfeiture petition should have been included in the first, they said.

The respondents also claimed that the petitioner government presented a defective certification of nonforum shopping.

RELATED STORIES

Couple going after Tanay property titled to Ligots

De Lima raps Ligots for evading arrest

PNP, NBI go after Ligots