SC junks claim of UCPB, Cocolife over sequestered coco levy funds

The Supreme Court has dismissed the bid of United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and United Coconut Planters Life Assurance Corp. (Cocolife) to claim portion of the 753.8 million shares of stocks of San Miguel Corp. worth P60 billion which are earlier reconveyed to the government for the use of coconut farmers and development of the coconut industry.

A 30-page decision penned by Associate Justice Martin Villarama Jr. reversed the decision issued by Makati City Regional Trial Court Judge Winlove Dumayas and granted the petition filed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, saying the Makati court had no jurisdiction over the case.

On Jan. 24, 2012, the high court upheld the Sandiganbayan’s decision in two civil cases related to the coconut levy funds.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that the coco levy funds belonged to the government and affirmed the PCGG’s right to vote the sequestered shares. The same ruling stated that portion of SMC shares of stocks belonged to the government because it was acquired using the funds.

Denying a motion for reconsideration on Sept. 4, 2012, the high court said the 753.8-million SMC Series 1 preferred shares as well as its dividend earnings and increments belonged to the government.

Because of the ruling, UCPB and Cocolife filed separate petitions for declaratory relief before the Makati court.

UCPB is claiming 11.03 percent or P7.84-billion worth of SMC shares while Cocolife is claiming 11.01 percent.

After the Makati court ruled in favor of the two, PCGG moved for a reconsideration which was subsequently denied by the lower court, prompting it to take the case to the high court.

In its petition, PCGG said the lower court abused its discretion when it acted on the petitions filed by Cocolife and UCPB, arguing that the court had no jurisdiction over acts performed by PCGG specifically in relation to writs of sequestrations.

The Supreme Court agreed with PCGG, saying under Section 4 (c) of Presidential Decree 1606 (the law that created the Sandiganbayan) as amended by Republic Act No. 7975 and Republic Act No. 8249, the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan included suits for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and related cases.

“Respondents’ assertion that the subject matter of their petitions for declaratory relief is different due to private funds used in buying shares in UCPB and [Coconut Industry Investment Fund] oil mills is but a feeble attempt to create an exception to the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive jurisdiction,” the Supreme Court said.

“As underscored in Cuenca v PCGG, the benchmark is whether such shares of UCPB and CIIF oil mills are alleged to be ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses and their perceived cronies, which is sufficient to bring the case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan pursuant to existing laws and decrees,” it added.

Likewise, the high court ruled that that the petition should also be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine of res judicata, according to the Court, provides that a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and constitutes an absolute bar to subsequent actions involving the claim, demand or cause of action.

The Supreme Court pointed out that the Sandiganbayan resolved in 2004 and the high court itself affirmed in 2012 the issue of ownership of the sequestered CIIF companies and CIIF SMC block of shares.

In the same ruling, the high court upheld that the levy funds took on the nature of taxes and could only be used for public purposes, specifically for the development, rehabilitation, and stabilization of the coconut industry.

Thus, the Supreme Court ordered the UCPB shares of stock representing the 7.22-percent fully paid shares subject of the said petition, with all the dividends, reconveyed to the government.

“Having resolved that subject matter jurisdiction pertains to the Sandiganbayan and not the RTC, and that the petitions for declaratory relief are barred by our Jan. 24, 2012 decision which settled with finality the issue of ownership of the CIIF oil mills, the 14 holding companies and CIIF SMC block of shares, we deem it unnecessary to address the other issues presented,” the high court said. Tetch Torres-Tupas/RC