FIRST DIVISION
REPUBLIC
OF THE
PHILIPPINES
THRU THEDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH),
Petitioner, |
G.R.
No.
116463
June 10, 2003
-versus-
COURT
OF APPEALS,
HON. AMANDA VALERA-CABIGAO,IN HER CAPACITY
AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONALTRIAL COURT, BRANCH
73, MALABON, METRO MANILA,AND NAVOTAS
INDUSTRIAL
CORPORATION,
Respondents
|
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The
Case
Before this court is
a petition for review of the decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals dated 18 July 1994, in CA-G.R. CV No. 33094.[2]
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of the Regional Trial Court of
Malabon ("Malabon Trial Court") which denied the motion of petitioner
to
consolidate Civil Case No. 1153-MN pending before it with Criminal
Cases
Nos. 16889-16900 filed with the Sandiganbayan. This petition seeks to
restrain
permanently the Malabon Trial Court from further hearing Civil Case No.
1153-MN and to dismiss the case.
The Antecedent
Facts
Private respondent Navotas
Industrial Corporation ("NIC") is a corporation engaged in dredging
operations
throughout the Philippines. On 27 November 1985, then Public
Works
and Highways Minister Jesus Hipolito requested former President
Ferdinand
E. Marcos to release P800 million to finance the immediate
implementation
of dredging, flood control and related projects in Metro Manila,
Bulacan,
Pampanga and Leyte. Of the total funds approved for release, P615
million went to the National Capital Region of the Ministry[3]
of Public Works and Highways ("DPWH").cralaw:red
The DPWH allocated the
P615 million to several projects covered by twenty-one contracts.
The DPWH awarded one of the contractors, NIC, P194,454,000.00
worth
of dredging work in four contracts for completion within 350 calendar
days.cralaw:red
NIC alleges that the
dredging work proceeded pursuant to specific work schedules and plan
approved
by DPWH. NIC contends that it accomplished 95.06 percent of the
required
total volume of work or P184,847,970.00 worth of services based on an
alleged
evaluation by DPWH. However, NIC maintains that DPWH paid only
79.22
percent of the accomplished work, leaving a balance of P30,799,676.00.cralaw:red
On 20 September 1988,
NIC filed a complaint for sum of money with the Malabon trial court
against
the Republic of the Philippines, thru the DPWH. The case,
docketed
as Civil Case No. 1153-MN, was raffled to Branch 73 of the court,
presided
by Judge Amanda Valera-Cabigao.cralaw:red
In its Answer, petitioner
contends that NIC is not entitled to the amount claimed. Soon after the
February 1986 Revolution, DPWH created a fact-finding committee to
audit
the flood control projects in the National Capital Region, Bulacan,
Pampanga
and Leyte. Then DPWH Minister Rogaciano Mercado, who replaced Minister
Jesus Hipolito, ordered the suspension of all projects funded by
special
budget released or issued before the snap elections on February 1986,
pending
inventory and evaluation of these projects.cralaw:red
Petitioner contends
that upon verification and investigation, the DPWH fact-finding
committee
discovered that the dredging contracts of NIC with DPWH were null and
void.
Petitioner claims that NIC worked on the project five or six months
before
the award of the dredging contracts to NIC. The contracts of NIC were
awarded
without any public bidding. Moreover, DPWH discovered that NIC, through
its corporate officers, connived with some DPWH officials in falsifying
certain public documents to make it appear that NIC had completed a
major
portion of the project, when no dredging work was actually
performed.
The scheme enabled NIC to collect from DPWH P146,962,072.47 as payment
for work allegedly accomplished. Petitioner thus filed a
counterclaim
for the return of the P146,962,072.47 plus interest and exemplary
damages
of P100 million.chanrobles virtual law library
On 14 July 1986, the
DPWH fact-finding committee filed with the Office of the Tanodbayan[4]
a case for estafa thru falsification of public documents and for
violation
of Republic Act No. 3019 against former Minister Hipolito. Other
DPWH officials[5]
involved in awarding the dredging contracts to NIC, as well as Cipriano
Bautista,[6]
president of NIC, were also named respondents. The charges[7]
were for four counts corresponding to the four contracts that DPWH
entered
into with NIC. The case was docketed as TBP Case No. 86-01163.cralaw:red
However, it was only
on 17 June 1991 that former Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez approved the
resolution
of the Office of the Special Prosecutor finding probable cause for
estafa
thru falsification of public documents and for violation of Section 3
(e)
and (g)[8]
of RA No. 3019. Subsequently, the Ombudsman filed the corresponding
Informations
with the First Division of the Sandiganbayan against all the
respondents
in TBP Case No. 86-01163. The cases were docketed as Criminal Cases
Nos.
16889-16900.cralaw:red
On 14 April 1993, petitioner
filed before the Malabon trial court a Motion to Consolidate Civil Case
No. 1153-MN with Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 in the
Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner argued that the civil case for collection and the criminal
cases
arose from the same incidents and involve the same facts. Thus,
these
cases should be consolidated as mandated by Section 4(b) of
Presidential
Decree No. 1606, as amended.cralaw:red
On 18 June 1993, the
Malabon trial court issued a Resolution denying petitioner’s Motion for
Consolidation. Thereafter, petitioner filed a Motion for
Reconsideration
which the Malabon trial court denied on 7 November 1993.cralaw:red
On 19 January 1994,
petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
with
the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 33094. In a
Decision
dated 18 July 1994, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition.
On 12 September 1994, petitioner filed with the Court this petition for
review.cralaw:red
On 26 September 1994,
the Court resolved to issue the temporary restraining order prayed for
by petitioner. Consequently, the Malabon trial court desisted from
hearing
further Civil Case No. 1153-MN.chanrobles virtual law library
The Ruling of the
Court of Appeals
In dismissing the petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus filed by petitioner, the Court
of Appeals ruled as follows:
It is clear that in
the same manner that the RTC would have no jurisdiction relative to
violations
of Republic Act Nos. 3019, as amended, and 1379, neither could the
Sandiganbayan
acquire jurisdiction over collection of sum of money, the latter not
involving
recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged.
More
specifically, the said Sandiganbayan would have no power whatsoever to
order the defendant in the civil case (the Republic of the Philippines
thru the DPWH) to pay the private respondent the amount of
P30,799,676.00
claimed by the latter. One of the averred purposes then of
consolidation
(to avoid multiplicity of suits) could not be realized. A civil
action
would still have to be instituted by the private respondent to recover
the amount allegedly due.
The Issues
I.
WHETHER THE PETITION
WAS FILED ON TIME.
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF
APPEALS ERRED IN NOT ORDERING THE CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO.
1153-MN
WITH CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 16889-16900 WITH THE SANDIGANBAYAN AS REQUIRED
BY SECTION 4(B) OF P.D. 1606.[9]
The Ruling of the
Court
The petition is devoid
of merit.chanrobles virtual law library
First Issue: Timeliness
of the filing of the petition
We first resolve a minor
issue raised by NIC regarding the timeliness of the filing of this
petition.cralaw:red
In its Comment, NIC seeks the dismissal of the petition on the ground
that
it was not served on time. Petitioner admittedly filed two
motions
for extension of time, each for fifteen days. The last day for filing
the
second motion for extension was on 11 September 1994. NIC,
however,
asserts that a copy of the petition was sent by registered mail to its
counsel only on 12 September 1994 or a day after the last day for
filing.cralaw:red
NIC, believing that
this petition was filed out of time, now asks the Court to consider the
instant petition as not having been filed, making the Resolution of the
Court of Appeals final and executory.cralaw:red
We do not agree.cralaw:red
NIC harps on the fact
that the petition was sent by registered mail only on 12 September
1994,
when the last day for filing was on 11 September 1994. NIC,
however,
overlooked one significant fact. The last day for filing, 11
September
1994, fell on a Sunday.chanrobles virtual law library
Based on Section 1,[10]
Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, and as applied in several cases,[11]
"where the last day for doing any act required or permitted by law
falls
on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the
court
sits, the time shall not run until the next working day." Thus,
petitioner
filed on time its petition on 12 September 1994, the next working day,
following the last day for filing which fell on a Sunday.cralaw:red
Second Issue:
Consolidation of the Cases
The main issue before
Us is whether Civil Case No. 1153-MN pending with the Malabon trial
court
should be consolidated with Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 filed with
the Sandiganbayan. chanrobles virtual law library
Petitioner argues that
the civil case for collection of sum of money and the criminal cases
for
estafa thru falsification of public documents and for violation of RA
No.
3019 arose from the same transaction and involve similar questions of
fact
and law. Petitioner claims that all these cases pertain to only
one
issue, that is, whether NIC performed dredging work. Petitioner argues
that a determination in the civil case that NIC performed dredging work
will entitle NIC to the balance of the contract price. Similarly,
petitioner claims that the criminal cases also involve the same issue
since
petitioner charges that the accused connived in falsifying documents
and
in fraudulently collecting payments for non-existing dredging
work.
In sum, petitioner asserts that since the issues in all these cases are
the same, the parties will have to present the same evidence.
Therefore,
the consolidation of these cases is in order.cralaw:red
We do not agree.cralaw:red
Consolidation is a matter
of discretion with the court. Consolidation becomes a
matter
of right only when the cases sought to be consolidated involve similar
questions of fact and law, provided certain requirements are met.
The purpose of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent
delay, clear congested dockets, simplify the work of the trial court,
and
save unnecessary expense.[12]
We cannot order the
consolidation of the civil case for collection with the criminal cases
for two reasons. First, the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the
collection case. Second, the Rules of Court do not allow the
filing
of a counterclaim or a third-party complaint in a criminal case.cralaw:red
First, the Sandiganbayan
was created as a special court to hear graft cases against government
officials
of a particular salary grade for violations of specific laws.[13]
Presidential Decree No. 1606,[14]
as amended by Republic Act No. 8249,[15]
outlines the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction as follows:
Sec.
4.
Jurisdiction. — The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction
in all cases involving:
A. Violations of
Republic
Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the
accused
are officials occupying the following positions in the government,
whether
in a permanent, acting or interim capacity, at the time of the
commission
of the offense:chanrobles virtual law library
(1)
Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional
director
and higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation
and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758),
specifically
including:
x
x x
B. Other offenses
or
felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this
section
in relation to their office.
C. Civil and
criminal
cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1,
2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
In cases where
none
of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade
'27'
or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military
and PNP officers mentioned above, exclusive original jurisdiction
thereof
shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, metropolitan trial
court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the
case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended.
The Sandiganbayan
shall
exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments,
resolutions
or order of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own
original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein
provided.
chan
robles virtual law library
x
x x
chan
robles virtual law library
In case private
individuals
are charged as co-principals, accomplices or accessories with the
public
officers or employees, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations, they shall be tried jointly with said public
officers
and employees in the proper courts which shall exercise exclusive
jurisdiction
over them.
x
x x.
The law does not
include
civil cases for collection of sum of money among the cases falling
under
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. If we consolidate the
collection
case in the Malabon trial court with the criminal cases, the
Sandiganbayan
will have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the collection case. Even
if NIC proves it is entitled to payment, the Sandiganbayan will have no
jurisdiction to award any money judgment to NIC. NIC will still
have
to file a separate case in the regular court for the collection of its
claim. Thus, the avowed purpose of consolidation which is to avoid
multiplicity
of suits will not be achieved.
Petitioner invokes Naguiat
v. Intermediate Appellate Court[16]
in claiming that a civil action not arising from the offense charged
may
be consolidated with the criminal action. Indeed, Naguiat allowed
the consolidation of the criminal case with a civil case arising ex
contractu.
In consolidating the two cases, Naguiat relied on Canos v. Peralta[17]
where the Court consolidated a civil action for the recovery of wage
differential
with a criminal action for violation of the Minimum Wage Law. Canos,
however,
made an important qualification before a court may order the
consolidation
of cases. Canos held that:
A court may
order several actions pending before it to be tried together where they
arise from the same act, event or transaction, involve the same or like
issues, and depend largely or substantially on the same evidence,
provided
that the court has jurisdiction over the cases to be consolidated
x
x x. [Emphasis supplied]
Thus, an essential
requisite
of consolidation is that the court must have jurisdiction over all the
cases consolidated before it. Since the Sandiganbayan does not have
jurisdiction
over the collection case, the same cannot be consolidated with the
criminal
cases even if these cases involve similar questions of fact and
law.
Obviously, consolidation of the collection case with the criminal cases
will be a useless and empty formality since the Sandiganbayan, being
devoid
of jurisdiction over the collection case, cannot act on it.
Second, we cannot order
the consolidation of the civil action filed by NIC with the
criminal
cases in the Sandiganbayan because the civil case amounts to a
counterclaim
or a third-party complaint in a criminal case. While NIC, as a
corporate
entity, is not an accused in the criminal cases, a consolidation of
NIC’s
collection case with the criminal cases will have the same effect of a
counterclaim or a third-party complaint against petitioner and
DPWH.
In such case, the rule against counterclaims and third-party complaints
in criminal cases may be applied by analogy.cralaw:red
Section 1, Rule 111
of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure expressly requires the accused
to litigate his counterclaim separately from the criminal action.
Section 1.
Institution of criminal and civil actions.-chanrobles virtual law library
(a) x
x
x
No counterclaim,
cross-claim
or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal
case,
but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may
be
litigated in a separate civil action. [Emphasis supplied]
This paragraph was
incorporated
in the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure to address the lacuna mentioned
in Cabaero v. Cantos[18]
where the Court noted the "absence of clear-cut rules governing the
prosecution
of impliedly instituted civil action and the necessary consequences and
implications thereof."[19]
In the same vein, the Court in Cabaero clarified that:
The
counterclaim
of the accused cannot be tried together with the criminal case because,
as already discussed, it will unnecessarily complicate and confuse the
criminal proceedings. Thus, the trial court should confine itself
to the criminal aspect and the possible civil liability of the accused
arising out of the crime. The counterclaim (and cross-claim or
third
party complaint, if any) should be set aside or refused cognizance
without
prejudice to their filing in separate proceedings at the proper time.
Thus, a
counterclaim
in a criminal case must be litigated separately to avoid complication
and
confusion in the resolution of the criminal cases. This is the
rationale
behind Section 1 of Rule 111. The same rationale applies to NIC’s
collection case against petitioner and DPWH. Thus, NIC’s
collection
case must be litigated separately before the Malabon trial court to
avoid
confusion in resolving the criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioner lodged its
own
counterclaim to the collection case filed with the Malabon trial court,
praying for the return of the payment DPWH made to NIC arising from the
dredging contracts. However, petitioner’s counterclaim is deemed
abandoned by virtue of Section 4 of PD No. 1606, as amended.[20]
The last paragraph of Section 4 of PD No. 1606, as amended, provides
that:chanrobles virtual law library
Any
provision
of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal
action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil
liability
shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly
determined
in, the same proceeding by the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate courts,
the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry
with
it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filing
of
such civil action separately from the criminal action shall be
recognized:
Provided, however, That where the civil action had heretofore been
filed
separately but judgment therein has not yet been rendered, and the
criminal
case is hereafter filed with the Sandiganbayan or the appropriate
court,
said civil action shall be transferred to the Sandiganbayan or the
appropriate
court, as the case may be, for consolidation and joint determination
with
the criminal action, otherwise the separate civil action shall be
deemed
abandoned. [Emphasis supplied]
Petitioner’s
counterclaim
in the civil case pending with the Malabon trial court for the return
of
the amount DPWH paid NIC is an action to recover civil liability ex
delicto.
However, this action to recover civil liability ex delicto is by
operation
of law included in the criminal cases filed with the Sandiganbayan. By
mandate of RA No. 8249, the counterclaim filed earlier in the separate
civil action with the Malabon trial court "shall be deemed abandoned."
The only question left
is whether NIC’s civil case before the Malabon trial court for
collection
of sum of money can proceed independently of the criminal cases filed
with
the Sandiganbayan. NIC’s collection case for unpaid services from
its dredging contracts with DPWH obviously does not fall under Articles
32, 33 or 34 (on Human Relations) of the Civil Code. Neither does it
fall
under Article 2176 (on quasi-delict) of the Civil Code. Under
Section
3 of Rule 111, civil actions falling under Articles 32, 33, 34 or 2176
may proceed independently and separately from the criminal case.
However, NIC cannot invoke any of these articles.cralaw:red
The only other possibility
is for NIC’s civil action to fall under Article 31 of the Civil Code
which
provides:
Art. 31.
When
the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or
omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently
of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
An example of a case
falling
under Article 31 is a civil action to recover the proceeds of sale of
goods
covered by a trust receipt. Such civil action can proceed
independently
of the criminal action for violation of the trust receipt law.[21]
In such a case, the validity of the contract, on which the civil action
is based, is not at issue. What is at issue is the violation of
an
obligation arising from a valid contract - the trust
receipt. chanrobles virtual law library
However, when the civil
action is based on a purported contract that is assailed as illegal per
se, as when the execution of the contract is alleged to violate the
Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Article 31 does not apply. In
such
a situation, the contract if proven illegal cannot create any valid
obligation
that can be the basis of a cause of action in a civil
case. Under Article 1409[22]
of the Civil Code, a contract "whose cause, object or purpose is
contrary
to law," or a contract that is "expressly prohibited or declared void
by
law," is void from the very beginning. No party to such void contract
can
claim any right under such contract or enforce any of its provisions.cralaw:red
Under Section 3 (g)
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, entering into a contract
that
is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government is
"declared
to be unlawful." If the act of entering into the contract is assailed
as
a crime in itself, then the issue of whether the contract is illegal
must
first be resolved before any civil action based on the contract can
proceed.
Only the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to decide whether the act
of
entering into such contract is a crime, where the salary grade of one
of
the accused is grade 27 or higher,[23]
as in Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 filed with the Sandiganbayan.cralaw:red
Article 31 speaks of
a civil action "based on an obligation not arising from the act x x x
complained
of as a felony." This clearly means that the obligation must
arise
from an act not constituting a crime. In the instant case, the
act
purporting to create the obligation is assailed as a crime in
itself.
That act, which is prohibited by law, is the entering into dredging
contracts
that are manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government.[24]
A contract executed against the provisions of prohibitory laws is void.[25]
If the dredging contracts are declared illegal, then no valid
obligation
can arise from such contracts. Consequently, no civil action
based
on such contracts can proceed independently of the criminal action.cralaw:red
In contrast, where the
civil action is based on a contract that can remain valid even if its
violation
may constitute a crime, the civil action can proceed
independently.
Thus, in estafa thru violation of the trust receipt law, the violation
of the trust receipt constitutes a crime. However, the trust receipt
itself
remains valid, allowing a civil action based on the trust receipt to
proceed
independently of the criminal case.cralaw:red
Clearly, NIC’s civil
case before the Malabon trial court does not fall under Article 31 of
the
Civil Code. This calls then for the application of the second
paragraph
of Section 2 of Rule 111 which states that "if the criminal action is
filed
after the said civil action has already been instituted, the latter
shall
be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
merits."
Consequently, the civil case for collection pending in the Malabon
trial
court must be suspended until after the termination of the criminal
cases
filed with the Sandiganbayan.chanrobles virtual law library
The suspension of the
civil case for collection of sum of money will avoid the possibility of
conflicting decisions between the Sandiganbayan and the Malabon trial
court
on the validity of NIC’s dredging contracts. If the Sandiganbayan
declares the dredging contracts illegal and void ab initio, and such
declaration
becomes final, then NIC’s civil case for collection of sum of money
will
have no legal leg to stand on. However, if the Sandiganbayan
finds
the dredging contracts valid, then NIC’s collection case before the
Malabon
trial court can then proceed to trial.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the petition
is DENIED and the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 18 July 1994
is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The counterclaim of petitioner in
Civil
Case No. 1153-MN pending with the Regional Trial Court of Malabon,
Branch
73, is deemed abandoned. The Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch
73,
is ordered to suspend the trial of Civil Case No. 1153-MN until the
termination
of Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900 filed with the Sandiganbayan.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Serafin V. C. Guingona with Associate
Justices
Gloria C. Paras and Minerva G. Reyes concurring.
[2]
Republic of the Philippines thru the DPWH v. Hon. Amanda
Valera-Cabigao,
in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 73,
Malabon,
Metro Manila and Navotas Industrial Corporation.
[3]
Later renamed into a Department.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Now the Special Prosecutor.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Aber P. Canlas, former DPWH Deputy Minister; Samuel T. Fadullon, former
DPWH-NCR Regional Director; Rodolfo Palmera, former DPWH-NCR Asst.
Regional
Director; Carmelo Manuguid, DPWH-NCR Supervising Engineer; Edilberto
Tayao,
DPWH-NCR Chief Civil Engineer; Oscar Cammayo, Project Engineer, Manava
Flood Control and Drainage Project, DPWH-NCR; Enrique Madamba, Jr.,
DPWH-NCR
Chief Civil Engineer; and Edgardo Manansala, DPWH-NCR.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
NIC manifested to the Court that Cipriano Baustista died on 11 May 2000.
[7]
Docketed as TBP Case No. 86-01163.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Section 3(g) of RA No. 3019 declares unlawful the following act: "(g)
entering,
on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction
manifestly
and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public
officer
profited or will profit thereby."
[9]
Rollo, p. 21.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Rule 22, Sec. 1. How to compute time.- In computing any period of time
prescribed or allowed by these Rules, or by order of the court, or by
any
applicable statute, the day of the act or event from which the
designated
period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance
included. If the last day of the period, as thus computed,
falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where
the
court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 105014, 18 December 2001; Labad v.
University of Southeastern Philippines, G.R. No. 139665, 9 August 2001,
362 SCRA 510; Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 145415, 2
February 2001, 351 SCRA 140.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
People v. Mejia, 341 Phil. 118 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
PD 1861, Whereas Clause: "[I]n keeping with the constitutional mandate
constituting the Sandiganbayan as a special court to try cases
involving
graft and corruption, and other offenses committed by public officers
and
employees in relation to their office, it is necessary and desirable
that
certain cases shall be triable by the appropriate courts, with
appellate
jurisdiction over these cases to be vested in the Sandiganbayan."chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be
known
as ‘Sandiganbayan’ and for other Purposes, 10 December 1978.
[15]
An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending
for the Purpose PD No. 1606, As Amended, Providing Funds
Therefor,
and for Other Purposes. 5 February 1997. At the time the
Informations
were filed with the Sandiganbayan, the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan
was governed by PD No. 1606, as amended by PD No. 1861, which
provided
as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
SEC.
4. Jurisdiction.- The Sandiganbayan shall exercise:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
(a)
Exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
(1)
Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and
Chapter
II, Section 2, Title VII of the Revised Penal Code;
Other
offenses or felonies committed by public officers and employees in
relation
to their office, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled
corporations, whether simple or complexed with other crimes, where the
penalty prescribed by law is higher than prision correcional or
imprisonment
for six (6) years, or a fine of P6,000.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that
offenses
or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the penalty prescribed by
law does not exceed prision correcional or imprisonment for six (6)
years
or a fine of P6,000.00 shall be tried by the proper Regional Trial
Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court.
x
x x.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
G.R. No. 73836, 18 August 1988, 164 SCRA 505.
[17]
201 Phil. 422 (1982).chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
338 Phil. 105 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Casupanan v. Laroya, G.R. No. 145391, 26 August 2002.
[20]
PD No. 1606; PD No. 1861; RA No. 7975; and RA No. 8249.
[21]
South City Homes, Inc. v. BA Finance, G.R. No. 135462, 7 December 2001;
Prudential Bank v. NLRC, 321 Phil. 798 (1995); Prudential Bank v.
Intermediate
Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74886, 8 December 1992, 216 SCRA 257.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Article 1409 of the Civil Code states: "The following contracts are
inexistent
and void from the beginning:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Those
whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good
customs,
public order or public policy;
x
x xchanrobles virtual law library
(7)
Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
x
x x."chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Section 4, PD No. 1606, as amended by RA No. 8249. At the time
the
Informations were filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 16889-16900, the
Sandiganbayan
still had exclusive jurisdiction over all violations of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act and certain other special laws regardless of
the salary grade of the accused public officials.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
TBP Case No. 86-01163 is for violation of Section 3(g) of RA No. 3019,
among others. See Annex "A," Rollo, p. 68.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Article 5 of the Civil Code provides as follows: "Acts executed
against
the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except
when
the law itself authorizes their validity." |