VICTOR AFRICA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD DIVISION); ROMAN MABANTA,  JR.;  AND   EDUARDO DE LOS ANGELES, RESPONDENTS.

Africa versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Victor Africa against the Sandiganbayan, Third Division, and against Roman Mabanta, Junior and Eduardo de los Angeles. Africa asks the Supreme Court to annul two resolutions of the Sandiganbayan: the resolution of 30 January 1996 dismissing his civil case for injunction, and the resolution of 29 March 1996 denying his motion for reconsideration. The case matters because it teaches two enduring lessons: the correct remedy from a final order of the Sandiganbayan, and the reach of the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction over persons whose shares are no longer under sequestration.

Procedural History

The Presidential Commission on Good Government sequestered the Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Incorporated in March 1986, and later filed a case before the Sandiganbayan for the reconveyance, reversion, accounting, and restitution of alleged ill-gotten shares. Victor Africa, claiming to be an officer of the company, went directly to the Supreme Court in 1988, asking that the Commission and its nominees be enjoined from ousting him from his offices. In its decision of 9 January 1992, the Supreme Court held that the issues were factual and referred the case to the Sandiganbayan for appropriate proceedings, ordering its consolidation with the reconveyance case. The case was docketed there as a separate civil case.

Before the Sandiganbayan, Africa moved for summary judgment, which was denied. He then moved for the production and inspection of documents, which the Sandiganbayan granted in January 1994. The private respondents filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration and for dismissal, arguing that the case had become moot and that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over them. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and dismissed the case in its resolution of 30 January 1996, and denied reconsideration in its resolution of 29 March 1996. Africa then filed this special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

After the Commission sequestered the company in March 1986, the sequestration over forty percent of the capital stock, the Class B shares owned by the foreign corporation Cable and Wireless, Limited, was lifted. Sequestration remained on the sixty percent Class A shares, consisting of the shares of Roberto Benedicto, Jose Africa, Polygon Investments and Managers, Incorporated, Universal Molasses Corporation, and all shares in which the late President Ferdinand Marcos was deemed the beneficial owner.

At the annual stockholders meeting of January 1988, Eduardo Villanueva was elected as the Commission's nominee, while Roman Mabanta, Junior and Eduardo de los Angeles were elected as nominees of the foreign investor Cable and Wireless, Limited. The new board then moved to ease Victor Africa out of his positions. He filed his petition in 1988 seeking to enjoin his ouster, but no temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was ever issued. He was effectively removed from his positions effective 30 June 1988.

The private respondents later argued that they had been replaced on the board by two British representatives, and that the Class B shares pertaining to them were never sequestered. The Commission itself confirmed that the sequestration covered only the Class A shares, and that it made no nomination over the Class B shares because it recognized they were not sequestered.

Issues

• Whether or not the proper remedy from the Sandiganbayan's order dismissing the civil case was a petition for review under Rule 45 rather than a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case as moot and academic.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the private respondents whose Class B shares were no longer under sequestration.
• Whether or not the dismissal should have been limited to the private respondents instead of benefiting all the respondents.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as further amended by Section 3 of Republic Act Number 7975, provides:

Decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan shall be appealable to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law in accordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

This provision fixes the remedy from a final order of the Sandiganbayan, and it is the ground on which the Court faulted the petitioner's choice of certiorari under Rule 65.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioner pursued the wrong remedy. The Sandiganbayan's resolution of 30 January 1996 was final in character because it disposed of the action. Under Section 7 of Presidential Decree Number 1606, as amended, the remedy was a petition for review under Rule 45. Certiorari may be resorted to even when appeal is available, but only where the appeal is inadequate, slow, insufficient, or ineffective. The petitioner offered nothing but a bare allegation that he had no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, which was untrue because appeal was in fact allowed.

On the second issue, the Court held that even if certiorari were proper, the petition would still fail, because the assailed resolutions were not tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The petition for injunction had become moot and academic. The act sought to be prevented, the ouster, had long been consummated. No restraining order was ever issued, so the petitioner was effectively removed, and his later prayer for a mandatory injunction to reopen his office had no leg to stand on. The referral by the Supreme Court did not bar dismissal, because it was made for the Sandiganbayan to exercise its original jurisdiction, and the parties were given full opportunity to ventilate their positions.

On the third issue, the Court sustained the Sandiganbayan. The private respondents were elected upon the nomination of the foreign investor, and at the time of election the Class B shares were no longer under sequestration. Conformably with its rulings in PCGG versus Peña and San Miguel Corporation versus Khan, the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over them because the shares pertaining to them were no longer covered by the writ of sequestration.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the dismissal should not be limited to the private respondents. The petition was directed at preventing the ouster by the respondents as a collegial body. Since the petition itself had become moot and academic, its dismissal should benefit all the respondents.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan are appealable to the Supreme Court only by petition for review on certiorari raising pure questions of law under Rule 45. Certiorari under Rule 65 is the exception, available only upon a showing that appeal is inadequate, slow, insufficient, or ineffective.

Second, an action for injunction becomes moot and academic once the act sought to be enjoined has been consummated, and a subsequent prayer for a mandatory injunction cannot revive it.

Third, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over persons whose shares are not sequestered and not alleged to be ill-gotten, following PCGG versus Peña and San Miguel Corporation versus Khan.

Disposition

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed in full the Sandiganbayan resolutions of 30 January and 29 March 1996, with costs against the petitioner.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: from a final order of the Sandiganbayan, the remedy is a petition for review under Rule 45, not certiorari under Rule 65. Examiners use this case to test the correct remedy from Sandiganbayan orders and the jurisdictional limit over unsequestered shares.