RICARDO SILVERIO, PETITIONER, VS. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENT.

This is a Petition for certiorari with a
prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary
restraining order.

The record of the case
discloses that the herein petitioner Ricardo Silverio
is a businessman residing in Makati, Metropolitan Manila.  The respondent Presidential Commission on
Good Government is a government agency created under Executive Order No. 1
issued on February 28, 1986 by President Corazon C. Aquino.  The said Commission (hereinafter
referred to as the PCGG) was designated to recover all properties which may have
been illegally acquired by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his wife, their children, their relatives and their
close associates.

On April, 1986, the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed
with the PCGG a Complaint for graft and corrupt practices and other crimes related to the public service.^[1]
The case was docketed as I.S. No. 1-A. 
The herein petitioner was among those included as defendants in the said
case.  It appears that in the course of
the proceedings, the respondent PCGG issued several writs of sequestration
against the properties of the petitioner.^[2]
Copies of such writs, however, have not been included in the record of the
case.^[3]

On May 21, 1986, the petitioner filed with the PCGG an
Appearance and a Manifestation narrating therein the history
of his automobile business enterprise, the Delta Motor Corporation.^[4]
Later that year, on December 9, 1986,
the petitioner filed with the PCGG a “Motion to Quash Complaint and to
Lift Sequestrations.”^[5]
The petitioner argued that the Complaint filed by the OSG should be quashed
because no connection between him and the other defendants has been alleged, and that there is no allegation therein as to any overt act supposedly
committed by him with a view towards a common criminal design. 
He also argued that no probable cause has been shown or established to
justify the sequestration of his properties.

On March 2,
1987, PCGG
Undersecretary Ramon A. Diaz issued a Notice setting the
hearing of the case for March 6,
1987.^[6] The said Notice also states —

“Having found on the basis of prima facie evidence that the
above-named defendants have acquired assets and properties manifestly out of
proportion to their usual, normal income, this Commission hereby requests their
appearances in person or by counsel to show cause why
judicial proceedings should not be instituted against them in accordance with
law.”

On March 4,
1987, the petitioner
filed with the PCGG an Ex Parte Urgent Motion requesting the said Commission
to furnish him the “prima facie evidence” referred to in the Notice issued
by Undersecretary Diaz.

The hearing of the case
went through as scheduled although the petitioner maintains that the
prosecution never furnished him the requested prima facie evidence.^[7]

Dissatisfied with the
turn of events narrated above, the petitioner elevated the case to this Court by way of the instant
Petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.  The
petitioner alleges that the respondent PCGG committed a grave abuse of discretion in failing or refusing to act on the “Motion to Quash
Complaint and to Lift Sequestrations” despite the absence of a prima
facie case against the petitioner.

On April
15, 1987, the
respondent PCGG, represented by the OSG, submitted its Comment on the Petition
as instructed by this Court.^[8] On July 30, 1987, the petitioner submitted his Reply to the Comment.^[9]

After a careful
examination of the entire record of the case, We find
the instant Petition devoid of merit.

Under Executive Order
Nos. 1, 2, and 14, the respondent PCGG is empowered to issue writs of
sequestration and similar orders so as to accomplish its duty of recovering
illegally-acquired wealth.^[10] The power to sequester property means
to place or cause to be placed under its possession or control said property, or
any building or office wherein any such property or any records pertaining
thereto may be found, including business enterprises and entities, — for the
purpose of preventing the destruction, concealment or dissipation of, and
otherwise conserving and preserving, the same — until it can be determined,
through appropriate judicial proceedings, whether the property was in truth
“ill-gotten,” i.e., acquired through or as a result of improper or illegal use of or the conversion of
funds belonging to the Government or any of its branches, intrumentalities,
enterprises, banks or financial institutions, or by taking undue advantage of
official position, authority, relationship, connection or influence, resulting
in unjust enrichment of the obstensible owner and
grave damage and prejudice to the State.^[11]

Like the remedy of preliminary attachment and receivership, as
well as delivery of personal property in replevin
suits, sequestration and provisional takeover writs may issue ex parte, and no objection of any significance
may be raised to the ex parte issuance
of an order of sequestration, given its fundamental character of temporariness
or conditionality, taking into account the obvious need to avoid alerting
suspected possessors of “ill-gotten wealth” and thereby cause the
disappearance or loss of the property precisely sought to be recovered.^[12]
The PCGG cannot exercise acts of dominion over the property sequestered because
it is a conservator, not an owner.^[13]
The PCGG may thus exercise only powers of administration over the property or
business sequestered.^[14]
And under Sections 5 and 6 of the Rules
and Regulations of the PCGG, the opportunity to contest the propriety of the
sequestration order is available to the parties whose properties had been
sequestered.

The power to issue such
writs, however, is qualified by Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions of the
1987 Constitution, which provides
as follows —

“Sec. 26.            xxx.

“A sequestration or freeze order shall be issued only upon
showing of a prima facie case.  xxx.”

Restated, the respondent
PCGG can issue such writs of sequestration only upon establishing a prima
facie case against the petitioner.

The record of the case
shows prima facie that
the various business interests of the petitioner have enjoyed considerable privileges
obtained from former President Marcos during his tenure as Chief Executive in
violation of existing laws; privileges which could not have been so obtained
were it not for the close association of the petitioner with the former
President.  We call the attention to the
following documents submitted by the respondent Commission:

“1.  A
business report dated January 2, 1974
signed by petitioner addressed to “SIR” (Annex 1 hereto), which
reads:

“S i r
:

‘I am very happy to inform you Sir,
that the shipment of machineries for our Progressive Car Manufacturing
Program covered by our second reparations contract has arrived.  Our project is now complete and for this Sir, I am very grateful.

‘It was my wish to convey
my gratitude earlier, but the circumstances of your new conduct of
government made me hesitate to communicate with you as I did before.  So, I
manifested to Gen. Ver sometime ago that I am available anytime at
your pleasure to convey my
appreciation, requesting him to advise me when I can see you.  However, with the arrival of the machineries
and the completion of our project, I feel that this is the opportune time to
convey my personal gratitude.

‘I am also glad to report that our company did very well in
1973.  We are not declaring dividends this year nor have we declared
dividends since our organization as all profits
are used for expansion.  All
accumulated profits are of course a liability
of the company to stockholders.  By plowing back all profits for
expansion we have progressed to be the 27th
largest company in 1972 and will
probably be within the first 20 in 1973.

‘I also wish to offer to you Sir, more participation in the fruits
of our endeavor, together with the public and with my family, for I owe to you
success of our project, to the public who should share in the opportunities of
investments, and to my family whose future I am responsible for.

‘With wishes for a Happy New Year to you Sir, and Mrs. Marcos, I am
always your faithful and loyal,

(Sgd.) R.C. SILVERIO”

2.  A certification dated August 25, 1967 signed by petitioner
(Annex “2”), whereby
petitioner committed himself to pay $290,000.00 to someone, whose identity unfortunately is again of
public knowledge, in consideration of his arrangements for making possible the
award to petitioner of 200 units of Kawasaki Scoop Loader.  The certification reads:

“TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

‘For and in consideration of your arrangement for making possible
to us the award of two hundred (200) units Kawasaki Scoop Loader, Model LDL6, I
hereby commit to pay you the sum of Two Hundred Ninety Thousand ($290,000.00)
Dollars based on F.O.B. value of $2,900,000.00, more or less, upon final award
to our suppliers, the Toyota Tsusho Kaisha, Ltd., Tokyo,
Japan, Equipment to be
supplied by Kawasaki Stock of Tokyo, Japan.

‘Makati, Rizal,
August 25, 1967.

(Sgd.) R.C. SILVERIO

3.  Another certification
dated August 25, 1967,
signed by petitioner (Annex 3), whereby petitioner committed himself to pay
$499,500.00 to someone whose identity unfortunately is again of public
knowledge in consideration of arrangements for making possible the award to petitioner of certain
equipment.  The certification reads:

‘TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

‘For and in consideration of your arrangement for making possible
to us the award of One Thousand (1,000) units Toyota Rear Dump Truck model
FA110LD-H, I hereby commit to pay you the sum
of Four Hundred Ninety Nine
Thousand Five Hundred ($499,500.00) Dollars based on F.O.B. value of
$4,995,000.00, more or less, upon final award to our suppliers the Toyota
Tsusho Kaisha, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, equipment to be  supplied by Toyota Motor Sales Co.
Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.

Makati, Rizal,
August 25, 1967.

(Sgd.)
R. C. SILVERIO’

4.  A receipt dated January 19, 1979 (Annex 4), signed by Hector Rivera
acknowledging receipt from Fe Gimenez of the following dividend checks of petitioner Ricardo Silverio from Meralco
Securities and First Philippine Holdings Corporation, to wit:

PCIB        #003534          dtd.      April 28, 1978  P            1,209.11

PCIB        #003201          dtd.      April 15, 1978       1,209.11

PCIB        #003516          dtd.      Oct.   2, 1978             1,209.11

BPI           #003161          dtd.      April
28, 1978              1,209.11

BPI           #003613          dtd.      April 28, 1978       1,209.11

BPI           #003619          dtd.      April
28, 1978       1,209.11

BPI           #003278          dtd.      April
28, 1978       1,209.11

BPI           #0666              dtd.
     April 28, 1978                   97.75

BPI           #0483              dtd.      April 28, 1978                   97.75

BPI           #0754              dtd.      April 28, 1978  P               97.75

BPI           #0495              dtd.      April 28, 1978                   97.75

PCIB        #9822              dtd.      Sept. 25, 1978           10,576.98

PCIB        #08932            dtd.      June 15, 1978           11,752.20

PCIB        #07553            dtd.      Dec. 15, 1978      6,623.72

PCIB        #0762              dtd.      April 30,1978                    97.75

PCIB        #0638              dtd.      Oct. 2, 1978                     97.75

PCIB        #005096          dtd.      Oct. 15, 1978      1,088.20

PCIB        #0894              dtd.      Oct. 31, 1978                   87.97

        P      
39,179.34

5.  Among bundles, a bundle of Meralco
Stock certificates in the name of petitioner endorsed in blank (Annexes 5, 6
and 7) to wit:

6.  Among bundles, a bundle of
Meralco dividend checks  (Annexes 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
payable to petitioner and endorsed by him in blank.

7.  A bundle, among bundles,
of Meralco Securities Corporation dividend checks
(Annexes 14, 15, 16 and 17) payable to petitioner endorsed by him in blank.

8.  Stock Certificate of
10,000 shares (Annex 18) of Delta Motor Corporation in the name of petitioner which he endorsed in blank.

9.  A comprehensive business report on Delta, Filipinas Bank, Hinobaan Copper Project, etc. dated May 10, 1980 (Annex 19) addressed to the deposed
President Marcos, signed by petitioner, asking for forgiveness for not
reporting to the deposed President very often, but at the same time expressing
his appreciation for the approval of the Central Bank assistance to Filipinas
Bank.  Petitioner likewise reports to
Marcos on the status of the Hinobaan Copper and
expresses thanks, for Marcos’ support and ends the report with a renewed
commitment to Marcos.  The latter reads
in part, thus:

‘Sir:

‘I hope you will forgive me for not communicating with you very
often and for seeming to shy
away.  It is just that because of the
close personal relationship developing between us over the past few years, and
to avoid being misunderstood, I felt it appropriate instead to sacrifice the honor
and pleasure of constantly being with your company.  Moreover, I need not mention my innate
reticence about being in the limelight
which constant association with a great personage like you brings about.  The recent developments, however, compel me
to write this letter to:

‘1. 
express my sincerest appreciation for your approval of the Central Bank assistance to the
Filipinas Bank;

2.   inform you of the status of the Hinobaan
Copper project, and also express to you my gratitude for the
support you have extended;

3.  renew my commitment to you and to your goals and aspirations for the country; and

4. 
request for your continued understanding
and support.

‘xxx                     xxx
                  xxx

‘We cannot solve our problems nor accomplish the many more things
to be done without your continued understanding and support.  I humbly seek your assistance, sir.  I wish to assure you that I will continue laboring
with rolled-up sleeves as long as I can in support of your great and dynamic
leadership and in gratitude for all the things you have done for me.

‘Respectfully yours,

(Sgd.) R.C. SILVERIO'”^[15]

In sum, the respondent
Commission made the following assertion —

“Bringing its discretion to bear on all the foregoing, the
PCGG is of the belief or opinion (cf:  Sec. 5, B.P. Blg.
227) that there exist more than ‘reasonable grounds’ (Sec. 3, PCGG Rules & Regs., April 11, 1986; cf.: 
Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489) or ‘prima facie’ evidence (Tourist
Duty-Free Shops, Inc. vs. PCGG, et al., G.R. NO. 74302, Res., May 27, 1986;
BASECO v. PCGG, et al., G.R. No. 75885, Res., Oct. 28, 1986) if not more than
mere ‘some’ evidence (Ang Eng Chong
v. Collector, 23 Phil. 128) or mere ‘any’ evidence (Que
Quay v. Collector, 33 Phil. 128) for the exercise of its
sovereign-mandated exclusive power and authority under Section 3, Executive Order No. 1.”^[16]

The veracity of the above-mentioned document and the contents
thereof will still have to be ascertained and the petitioner will have the opportunity to defend his interests
before the Sandiganbayan, the decision of which could
still be reviewed by this Court in an
appropriate case.  As far as the instant
Petition is concerned, these documents show that there is a prima facie
case against the herein petitioner sufficient to authorize the respondent PCGG
to institute legal action against him as provided for by law.  For these reasons, We
believe that the prima facie case required under Section 26 of the Transitory Provisions of the
1987 Constitution has been established and/or demonstrated by the respondent
Commission.

On the basis of the foregoing discussions, We are not convinced that the respondent PCGG Committed a grave
abuse of discretion in pursuing the legal
action against the petitioner
under the circumstances obtaining in this case. 
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari
sought by the petitioner cannot
issue.

These observations notwithstanding, this Court takes judicial
notice of the fact that before September, 1987, the OSG had already filed the corresponding suit against
the defendants in I.S. No. 1-A before the Sandiganbayan.  On this score alone, the instant petition is
rendered moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Petition
for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
merit.  We make no pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.

---

^[1]
Pages 42 to 46, Rollo.  At the time the Complaint was filed, the
Solicitor General was Mr. Sedfrey Ordoñez.

^[2]
Page 39, Rollo.

^[3]
The issuance of the writs of sequestration appears to be admitted by the PCGG
in page 20 of its Comment.  Pages 78 to 113, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 47 to 52, Rollo.

^[5]
Pages 53 to 68, Rollo.

^[6]
Pages 69 to 72, Rollo.

^[7]
Page 7, Petition; page 8, Rollo.

^[8]
Pages 78 to 113, Rollo.

^[9]
Pages 149 to 167,
Rollo.

^[10]
Executive Order No. 2 was issued on March
12, 1986.  Executive Order No. 14 was issued on May 7, 1986.

^[11]
Section 1 (B), Rules and Regulations of the PCGG.  Cited in Bataan
Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO) v. PCGG, G.R. No. 75885,
May 27, 1987.

^[12]
Bataan Shipyard & Engineering Co., Inc. (BASECO) v.
PCGG, supra.

^[13]
Ibid.

^[14]
Ibid.

^[15]
Pages 13 to 20,
Comment; pages 90 to 96, Rollo.

^[16]
Ibid, pages 19 to 20.