8/3/2019 Rp vs Desierto Et Al

1/1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, asOmbudsman, EDUARDO C. CONJUANCO, JR., JUAN PONCE ENRILE, MA. CLARAS. LOBREGAT, ROLANDO DE LA CUESTA, JOSE C. CONCEPCION, JOSE R.MENDOZA, EMMANUEL M. ALAMEDA, HERMENEGILDO C. ZAYCO, TEODORA A.REGALA, AMADO C. MAMURIC, DOUGLAS LU YM, JAIME GANDIAGA, NARCISOPINEDA and DANILO S. URSUA, respondents.

[G.R. No. 131966. September 23, 2002]

Facts: Respondents, subordinates and close associates of Dictator Marcos, are members ofthe Boards of Directors of United Coconut Planter Bank and United Coconut Oil Mills, Inc.They are charged with taking undue advantage of their public office and close relationshipwith Dictator Marcos in unlawfully misappropriating huge amounts of coconut levy funds inconnection with the acquisition of 16 oil mills in order ot establish a monopoly, violating RA

3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act). The PCGG then transmitted the case to the Officeof the Ombudsman for appropriate action, OMB-0-90-2811. Thereafter, the GraftInvestigation Officer II, Amanete, issued a resolution recommending the dismissal of saidcase, finding no sufficient evidence to believe that violation of Anti-Graft Law wascommitted.

Petitioner filed with the SC a x x x petition for certiorari on the ff grounds: (a) respondentsmade convenient use of PD 961, PD 1468 and LOI 926 to carry out their grand design to

establish a coco monopoly to the detriment of poor coco farmers; (b) there is no legal basisfor the contention that the acts of respondents had been decriminalized; and (c) allegationsin the complaint are deemed admitted as respondents failed to submit their counter-affidavit.

Respondents Regala and Concepcion contend, inter alia, that petitioner has no cause ofaction against them because their acts were performed in the course of their duties as

counsels.

Issues:1. If the petition should be entertained though it was filed by the PCGG without the

intervention of the OSG.

2. If respondents Regala and Concepcion should be dropped as paties-defendants inOMB-0-90-2811.Held:

1. The ends of substantial justice affords an exception that the OSG should have filedhe instant petition in behalf of the Republic. If the ends of substantial justice wouldbe better served, and the issues in the action could be determined in a more just,speedy and inexpensive manner, then the petititon shold be entertained, evenassuming arguendo that the PCGG has no authority to file said petition.

2. Yes. In Castillo vs Sandiganbayan and Republic of the Philippines, the Court excludedlawyer Gregorio Castillo as party-defendant to the case, citing Regala vs.Sandiganbayan. x x x The Ombudsman is directed to proceed with the preliminary

investigation of OMB-0-90-2811 and to exclude respondents Regala and Concepcionas defendants therein.