political law- pcgg vs sandiganbayan.docx

7/23/2019 political law- pcgg vs sandiganbayan.docx

1/9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 90478 November 21, 1991

REPUBLIC OF TE PILIPPINES !PRESI"ENTI#L COMMISSION ON GOO"

GO$ERNMENT%, petitioner,

vs.

S#N"IG#NB#N, BIEN$ENI"O R. T#NTOCO, 'R. ()* "OMIN#"OR R. S#NTI#GO, respondents.

Dominador R. Santiago for and in his own behalf and as counsel for respondent Tantoco, Jr.

N#R$#S#, J.:p

Private respondents Bienvenido R. Tantoco, Jr. and Doinador R. !antia"o # to"ether $ith %erdinand E.

Marcos, &elda R. Marcos, Bienvenido R. Tantoco, !r., 'liceria R. Tantoco, and Maria (ourdes Tantoco)

Pineda)are defendants in Civil Case No. ***+ of the !andi"anbaan. The case $as coenced on Jul

-, /+0 b the Presidential Coission on 'ood 'overnent 1PC''2 in behalf of the Republic of the

Philippines. The coplaint $hich initiated the action $as denoinated one 3for reconveance, reversion,

accountin", restitution and daa"es,3 and $as avo$edl filed pursuant to E4ecutive 5rder No. 6 of

President Cora7on C. A8uino.

After havin" been served $ith suons, Tantoco, Jr. and !antia"o, instead of filin" their ans$er, 9ointl

filed a 3M5T&5N T5 !TR&:E 5;T !5ME P5RT&5N! 5% T of the Rules

of Court3 dated %ebruar , /++, and 3&nterro"atories under Rule ->.3Basicall, the sou"ht an ans$er

to the 8uestion@ 3Who were the Commissioners of the PCGG aside from its Chairman, !on. Ramon Dia",

who #erified the complaint$ who appro#ed or authori"ed the inclusion of %essrs. &ien#enido R. Tantoco,

Jr

. and Dominador R. Santiago as defendants in the ..case3-The PC'' responded b filin" a otion

dated %ebruar /, /++ to stri?e out said otion and interro"atories as bein" ipertinent, 38ueer,3

3$eird,3 or 3procedurall bi7arre as the purpose thereof lac?s erit as it is iproper, ipertinent andirrelevant under an

"uise.37

5n March +, /++, in copliance $ith the 5rder of Januar -/, /++, the PC'' filed an E4panded

Coplaint.8As this e4panded coplaint, Tantoco and !antia"o reiterated their otion for bill of

particulars, throu"h a Manifestation dated April , /++.9

After$ards, b Resolution dated Jul 6, /++, 10the !andi"anbaan denied the otion to stri?e out, for

bill of particulars, and for leave to file interro"atories, holdin" the to be $ithout le"al and factual basis.

Also denied $as the PC''s otion to stri?e out ipertinent pleadin" dated %ebruar /, /++. The

!andi"anbaan declaredinter aliathe coplaint to be 3sufficientl definite and clear enou"h,3 there areade8uate alle"ations . . $hich clearl portra the supposed involveent andor alle"ed participation of

defendants)ovants in the transactions described in detail in said Coplaint,3 and 3the other atters

sou"ht for particulari7ation are evidentiar in nature $hich should be ventilated in the pre)trial or trial

proper . .3 &t also opined that 31s2ervice of interro"atories before 9oinder of issue and $ithout leave of court

is preature . . 1absent2 an special or e4traordinar circustances . . $hich $ould 9ustif . . 1the sae2.3


2/9

Tantoco and !antia"o then filed an Ans$er $ith Copulsor Counterclai under date of Jul +,

/++.11&n response, the PC'' presented a 3Repl to Ans$er $ith Motion to Disiss Copulsor

Counterclai 3 12

The case $as set for pre)trial on Jul =, /+/.1+5n Jul ->, /+/, the PC'' subitted its PRE)

TR&A(. 14The pre)trial $as ho$ever reset to !epteber , /+/, and all other parties $ere re8uired to

subit pre)trial briefs on or before that date. 1

5n Jul -0, /+/ Tantoco and !antia"o filed $ith the !andi"anbaan a pleadin" denoinated

3&nterro"atories to Plaintiff,3 1-and on Au"ust -, /+/, an 3Aended &nterro"atories to Plaintiff317as

$ell as a Motion for Production and &nspection of Docuents. 18

The aended interro"atories chiefl sou"ht factual details relative to specific averents of PC''s

aended coplaint, throu"h such 8uestions, for instance, as#

. &n connection $ith the alle"ations . . in para"raph . ., what specific propert' or

properties does the plaintiff claim it has the right to reco#er from defendants Tantoco, Jr.

and Santiago for being ill(gotten

=. &n connection $ith the alle"ations . . in para"raph * 1a2 . . what specific act or acts . .

were committed b' defendants Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago in )concert with) defendant

*erdinand %arcos and in furtherance or pursuit, of the alleged s'stematic plan of said

defendant %arcos to accumulate ill(gotten wealth3

>. &n connection $ith . . para"raph = . ., what specific act or acts of the defendants

Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago . . were committed b' said defendants as part, or in

furtherance, of the alleged plan to conceal assets of defendants *erdinand and +melda

%arcos

0. &n connection $ith . . para"raph >1c2 . . is it plaintiff-s position or theor' of the case

that Tourist Dut' *ree Shops, +nc., including all the assets of said corporation, are

beneficiall' owned b' either or both defendants *erdinand and +melda %arcos and that

the defendants Tantoco, Jr. and Santiago, as well as, the other stocholders of record of

the same corporation are mere )dummies) of said defendants *erdinand and /or +melda

R. %arcos

5n the other hand, the otion for production and inspection of docuents praed for e4aination and

copin" of#

2 the 3official records and other evidence3 on the basis of $hich the verification of the

Aended Coplaint asserted that the alle"ations thereof are 3true and correct3

-2 the docuents listed in PC''s Pre)Trial Brief as those 3intended to be presented and

. . ar?ed as e4hibits for the plaintiff3 and

=2 3the inutes of the eetin" of the PC'' $hich chronicles the discussion 1if an2 and

the decision 1of the Chairan and ebers2 to file the coplaint3 in the case at bar.

B Resolutions dated Au"ust -, /+/ and Au"ust ->, /+/, the !andi"anbaan aditted the Aended

&nterro"atories and "ranted the otion for production and inspection of docuents 1production bein"

scheduled on !epteber 6 and >, /+/2, respectivel.

5n !epteber , /+/, the PC'' filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of Au"ust ->,

/+/ 1allo$in" production and inspection of docuents2. &t ar"ued that

2 since the docuents sub9ect thereof $ould be ar?ed as e4hibits durin" the pre)trial on !epteber ,

/+/ an$a, the order for 3their production and inspection on !epteber 6 and >, are purposeless

and unnecessar3


3/9

-2 ovants alread ?no$ of the e4istence and contents of the docuent $hich 3are clearl described . .

1in2 plaintiffs Pre)Trial Brief3

=2 the docuents are 3privile"ed in character3 since the are intended to be used a"ainst the PC''

andor its Coissioners in violation of !ection 6, E4ecutive 5rder No. , #i".@

1a2 No civil action shall lie a"ainst the Coission or an eber thereof for anthin"

done or oitted in the dischar"e of the tas? conteplated b this 5rder.

1b2 No eber or staff of the Coission shall be re8uired to testif or produce

evidence in an 9udicial, le"islative, or adinistrative proceedin" concernin" atters

$ithin its official co"ni7ance.

&t also filed on !epteber 6, /+/ an opposition to the Aended &nterro"atories, 19 $hich the

!andi"anbaan treated as a otion for reconsideration of the Resolution of Au"ust -, /+/ 1adittin"

the Aended &nterro"atories2. The opposition alle"ed that #

2 the interro"atories 3are not specific and do not nae the person to $ho the are propounded . .,3 or3$ho in the PC'', in particular, . . 1should2 ans$er the interro"atories3

-2 the interro"atories delve into 3factual atters $hich had alread been decreed . . as part of the proof of

the Coplaint upon trial . .3

=2 the interro"atories 3are frivolous3 since the in8uire about 3atters of fact . . $hich defendants . .

sou"ht to . . 1e4tract2 throu"h their aborted Motion for Bill of Particulars3

62 the interro"atories 3are reall in the nature of a deposition, $hich is preaturel filed and irre"ularl

utili7ed . . 1since2 the order of trial calls for plaintiff to first present its evidence.3

Tantoco and !antia"o filed a repl and opposition on !epteber +, /+/.

After hearin", the !andi"anbaan proul"ated t$o 1-2 Resolutions on !epteber -/, /+/, the first,

denin" reconsideration 1of the Resolution allo$in" production of docuents2, and the second, reiteratin"

b iplication the perission to serve the aended interro"atories on the plaintiff 1PC''2. 20


4/9

vie$ed, scrutini7ed and even offered ob9ections thereto and ade coents thereon

and

=2 that the other docuents sou"ht to be produced are either #

1a2 privile"ed in character or confidential in nature and

their use is proscribed b the iunit provisions of

E4ecutive 5rder No. , or

1b2 non)e4istent, or ere products of the ovants

suspicion and fear.

This Court issued a teporar restrainin" order on 5ctober -0, /+/, directin" the !andi"anbaan to

desist fro enforcin" its 8uestioned resolutions of !epteber -/, /+/ in Civil Case No. ***+. 21

After the issues $ere delineated and ar"ued at no little len"th b the parties, the !olicitor 'eneral

$ithdre$ 3as counsel for plaintiff . . $ith the reservation, ho$ever, conforabl $ith Presidential Decree

No. 60+, the provisions of E4ecutive 5rder No. -/-, as $ell as the decisional la$ of 5rbos v. Civil !erviceCoission, et al., 1'.R. No. /->, !epteber -, //*2 22to subit his coentobservation on

incidentsatters pendin" $ith this . . Court if called for b circustances in the interest of the

'overnent or if he is so re8uired b the Court.3 2+This, the Court allo$ed b Resolution dated Januar

-, //. 24

!ubse8uentl, PC'' Coissioner Ma4io A. Maceren advised the Court that the cases fro $hich the

!olicitor 'eneral had $ithdra$n $ould henceforth be under his 1Macerens2 char"e 3andor an of the

follo$in" private attornes@ Eliseo B. Alapa, Jr., Mario E. 5n"?i?o, Mario Jalandoni and such other

attornes as it a later authori7e.3 2

The facts not bein" in dispute, and it appearin" that the parties have full ventilated their respectivepositions, the Court no$ proceeds to decide the case.

&nvolved in the present proceedin"s are t$o of the odes of discover provided in the Rules of Court@

interro"atories to parties , 2-and production and inspection of docuents and thin"s. 27No$, it appears

to the Court that aon" far too an la$ers 1and not a fe$ 9ud"es2, there is, if not a re"rettable

unfailiarit and even outri"ht i"norance about the nature, purposes and operation of the odes of

discover, at least a stron" et unreasoned and unreasonable disinclination to resort to the # $hich is a

"reat pit for the intelli"ent and ade8uate use of the deposition)discover echanis, coupled $ith pre)

trial procedure, could, as the e4perience of other 9urisdictions convincin"l deonstrates, effectivel

shorten the period of liti"ation and speed up ad9udication.28


5/9

A liti"ation is not a "ae of technicalities in $hich one, ore deepl schooled and s?illed

in the subtle art of oveent and position, entraps and destros the other. &t is, rather a

contest in $hicheach contending part' full' and fairl' la's before the court the facts in

issue and then brushing aside as wholl' tri#ial and indecisi#e all imperfections of form

and technicalities of procedure, ass that 2ustice be done on the merits. (a$suits, unli?e

duels, are not to be $on b a rapiers thrust. Technicalit, $hen it deserts its proper office

as an aid to 9ustice and becoes its "reat hindrance and chief ene, deserves scant

consideration fro courts. There should be no vested ri"ht in technicalities. . . .

The essa"e is plain. &t is the dut of each contendin" part to la before the court the facts in issue)full

and fairl i

.e., to present to the court all

the aterial and relevant facts ?no$n to hi, suppressin" or

concealin" nothin", nor preventin" another part, b clever and adroit anipulation of the technical rules

of pleadin" and evidence, fro also presentin" all the facts $ithin his ?no$led"e.

&nitiall, that underta?in" of lain" the facts before the court is accoplished b the pleadin"s filed b the

parties but that, onl in a ver "eneral $a. 5nl 3ultiate facts3 are set forth in the pleadin"s hence,

onl the barest outline of the facfual basis of a parts clais or defenses is lined in his pleadin"s. The

la$ sas that ever pleadin" 3shall contain in a ethodical and lo"ical for, a plain, concise and directstateent of theultimate facts on $hich the part pleadin" relies for his clai or defense, as the case a

be, oittin" the stateent of ere evidentiar facts.3 +1

Parentheticall, if this re8uireent is not observed, i.e., the ultiate facts are alle"ed too "enerall or 3not

averred $ith sufficient definiteness or particularit to enable . . 1an adverse part2 properl to prepare his

responsive pleadin" or to prepare for trial,3 a bill of particulars see?in" a 3ore definite stateent3 a be

ordered b the court on otion of a part. The office of a bill of particulars is, ho$ever, liited to a?in"

ore particular or definite the ultimate facts in a pleadin" &t is not its office to suppl evidentiar atters.

And the coon perception is that said evidentiar details are ade ?no$n to the parties and the court

onl durin" the trial, $hen proof is adduced on the issues of fact arisin" fro the pleadin"s.

The truth is that 3evidentiar atters3 a be in8uired into and learned b the parties before the trial.

&ndeed, it is the purpose and polic of the la$ that the parties # before the trial if not indeed even before

the pre)trial # should discover or infor theselves of all the facts relevant to the action, not onl those

?no$n to the individuall, but also those ?no$n to adversaries in other $ords, the desideratumis that

civil trials should not be carried on in the dar? and the Rules of Court a?e this ideal possible throu"h the

deposition)discover echanis set forth in Rules -6 to -/. The e4perience in other 9urisdictions has

been that aple discover before trial, under proper re"ulation, accoplished one of the ost necessar

of odern procedure@ it not onl eliinates unessential issue fro trials thereb shortenin" the

considerabl, but also re8uires parties to pla the "ae $ith the cards on the table so that the possibilit

of fair settleent before trial is easurabl increased. . .3 +2

As 9ust intiated, the deposition)discover procedure $as desi"ned to reed the conceded inade8uacand cubersoeness of the pre)trial functions of notice)"ivin", issue)forulation and fact revelation

theretofore perfored priaril b the pleadin"s.

The various odes or instruents of discover are eant to serve 12 as a device, alon" $ith the pre)trial

hearin" under Rule -*, to narro$ and clarif the basic issues bet$een the parties, and 1-2 as a device for

ascertainin" the facts relative to those issues. The evident purpose is, to repeat, to enable parties,

consistent $ith reco"ni7ed privile"es, to obtain the fullest possible ?no$led"e of the issues and facts

before trials and thus prevent that said trials are carried on in the dar?. ++

To this end, the field of in8uir that a be covered b depositions or interro"atories is as broad as $hen

the interro"ated part is called as a $itness to testif orall at trial. The in8uir e4tends to all facts $hich

are relevant, $hether the be ultiate or evidentiar, e4ceptin" onl those atters $hich are privile"ed.

The ob9ective is as uch to "ive ever part the fullest possible inforation of all the relevant facts before

the trial as to obtain evidence for use upon said trial. The principle is reflected in !ection -, Rule -6

1"overnin" depositions2+4$hich "enerall allo$s the e4aination of a deponent #

2 3re"ardin" an' matter, not privile"ed, $hich is relevant to the sub9ect of the pendin"

action, $hether relatin" to the clai or defense of an other part3


6/9

-2 as $ell as@

1a2 3the e4istence, description, nature, custod, condition and location of an boo?s,

docuents, or other tan"ible thin"s3 and

1b2 3the identit and location of persons havin" ?no$led"e of relevant facts.3

Fhat is chiefl conteplated is the discover of ever bit of inforation $hich a be useful in the

preparation for trial, such as the identit and location of persons havin" ?no$led"e of relevant facts those

relevant facts theselves and the e4istence, description, nature, custod, condition, and location of an

boo?s, docuents, or other tan"ible thin"s. of the Rules of

Court cannot be sustained.

&t should initiall be pointed out # as re"ards the private respondents 3Motion for (eave to %ile

&nterro"atories3 dated %ebruar , /++ 41# that it $as correct for the to see? leave to serve


7/9

interro"atories, because discover $as bein" availed of beforean ans$er had been served. &n such a

situation, i.e., 3after 9urisdiction has been obtained over an defendant or over propert sub9ect of the

action3 but before ans$er, !ection of Rule -6 1treatin" of depositions2, in relation to !ection of Rule

-> 1dealin" $ith interro"atories to parties2 e4plicitl re8uires 3leave of court.3 42But there $as no need for

the private respondents to see? such leave to serve their 3Aended &nterro"atories to Plaintiff3 1dated

Au"ust -, /+/4+2 after the had filed their ans$er to the PC''s coplaint, 9ust as there $as no need

for the !andi"anbaan to act thereon.

. The petitioners first contention # that the interro"atories in 8uestion are defective because the 1a2 do

not nae the particular individuals to $ho the are propounded, bein" addressed onl to the PC'',

and 1b2 are 3fundaentall the same matters . . 1private respondents2 sou"ht to be clarified throu"h their

aborted Motion . . for Bill of Particulars3 # are untenable and 8uic?l disposed of.

The first part of petitioners subission is ade8uatel confuted b !ection , Rule -> $hich states that if

the part served $ith interro"atories is a 9uridical entit such as 3a public or private corporation or a

partnership or association,3 the sae shall be 3ans$ered . . b an officer thereof copetent to testif in

its behalf.3 There is absolutel no reason $h this proposition should not be applied b analo" to the

interro"atories served on the PC''. That the interro"atories are addressed onl to the PC'', $ithoutnain" an specific coissioner o officer thereof, is utterl of no conse8uence, and a not be invo?ed

as a reason to refuse to ans$er. As the rule states, the interro"atories shall be ans$ered 3b an officer

thereof copetent to testif in its behalf.3

That the atters on $hich discover is desired are the sae atters sub9ect of a prior otion for bill of

particulars addressed to the PC''s aended coplaint # and denied for lac? of erit # is beside the

point. &ndeed, as alread pointed out above, a bill of particulars a elicit onl ultimate facts, not so)

called e#identiar'facts. The latter are $ithout doubt proper sub9ect of discover. 44

Neither a it be validl ar"ued that the aended interro"atories lac? specificit. The erest "lance at

the disproves the ar"uent. The interro"atories are ade to relate to individual para"raphs of the

PC''s e4panded coplaint and in8uire about details of the ultiate facts therein alle"ed. Fhat the

PC'' a properl do is to ob9ect to specific ites of the interro"atories, on the "round of lac? of

relevanc, or privile"e, or that the in8uiries are bein" ade in bad faith, or sipl to ebarass or oppress

it. 4But until such an ob9ection is presented and sustained, the obli"ation to ans$er subsists.

-. That the interro"atories deal $ith factual atters $hich $ill be part of the PC''s proof upon trial, is

not "round for suppressin" the either. As alread pointed out, it is the precise purpose of discover to

ensure utual ?no$led"e of all the relevant facts on the part of all parties even before trial, this bein"

deeed essential to proper liti"ation. This is $h either part a copel the other to dis"or"e $hatever

facts he has in his possession and the sta"e at $hich disclosure of evidence is ade is advanced fro

the tie of trial to the period precedin" it.

=. Also uneritorious is the ob9ection that the interro"atories $ould a?e PC'' Coissioners and

officers $itnesses, in contravention of E4ecutive 5rder No. 6 and related issuances. &n the first place,

there is nothin" at all $ron" in a parts a?in" his adversar his $itness .4-This is e4pressl allo$ed b

!ection , Rule =- of the Rules of Court,#i".@

!ec. . Direct e4aination of un$illin" or hostile $itnesses. # A part a . . . call an

adverse part or an officer, director, or ana"in" a"ent of a public or private corporation

or of a partnership or association $hich is an adverse part, and interro"ate hi b

leadin" 8uestions and contradict and ipeach hi in all respects as if he had been called

b the adverse part, and the $itness thus called a be contradicted and ipeached b

or on behalf of the adverse part also, and a be cross)e4ained b the adverse part

onl upon the sub9ect)atter of his e4aination in chief.

The PC'' insinuates that the private respondents are en"a"ed on a 3fishin" e4pedition,3 apart fro the

fact that the inforation sou"ht is iaterial since the are evidentl eant to establish a clai a"ainst

PC'' officers $ho are not parties to the action. &t suffices to point out that 3fishin" e4peditions3 are

precisel peritted throu"h the odes of discover. 47Moreover, a defendant $ho files a counterclai

a"ainst the plaintiff is allo$ed b the Rules to iplead persons 1therefore stran"ers to the action2 as


8/9

additional defendants on said counterclai. This a be done pursuant to !ection 6, Rule of the

Rules, to $it@

!ec. 6. &ringing new parties. # Fhen the presence of parties other than those to the

ori"inal action is re8uired for the "rantin" of coplete relief in the deterination of

a counterclaim

or cross)clai, the court shall order the to be brou"ht in as defendants,

if 9urisdiction over the can be obtained.3

The PC''s assertion that it or its ebers are not aenable to an civil action 3for anthin" done or

oitted in the dischar"e of the tas? conteplated b . . 1E4ecutive2 5rder 1No. 2,3 is not a "round to

refuse to ans$er the interro"atories. The disclosure of facto relevant to the action and $hich are not self)

incriinator or other$ise privile"ed is one thin" the atter of $hether or not liabilit a arise fro the

facts disclosed in li"ht of E4ecutive 5rder

No. , is another. No doubt, the latter proposition a properl be set up b $a of defense in the action.

The apprehension has been e4pressed that the ans$ers to the interro"atories a be utili7ed as

foundation for a counterclai a"ainst the PC'' or its ebers and officers. The $ill be. The private

respondents have ade no secret that this is in fact their intention. Fithal, the Court is unable to upholdthe proposition that $hile the PC'' obviousl feels itself at libert to brin" actions on the basis of its

stud and appreciation of the evidence in its possession, the parties sued should not be free to file

counterclais in the sae actions a"ainst the PC'' or its officers for "ross ne"lect or i"norance, if not

do$nri"ht bad faith or alice in the coenceent or initiation of such 9udicial proceedin"s, or that in the

actions that it a brin", the PC'' a opt not to be bound b rule applicable to the parties it has sued,

e."., the rules of discover.

!o, too, the PC''s postulation that none of its ebers a be 3re8uired to testif or produce evidence

in an 9udicial . . proceedin" concernin" atters $ithin its official co"ni7ance,3 has no application to a

9udicial proceedin" it has itself initiated. As 9ust su""ested, the act of brin"in" suit ust entail a $aiver of

the e4eption fro "ivin" evidence b brin"in" suit it brin"s itself $ithin the operation and scope of all

the rules "overnin" civil actions, includin" the ri"hts and duties under the rules of discover. 5ther$ise,

the absurd $ould have to be conceded, that $hile the parties it has ipleaded as defendants a be

re8uired to 3dis"or"e all the facts3 $ithin their ?no$led"e and in their possession, it a not itself be

sub9ect to a li?e copulsion.

The !tate is, of course, iune fro suit in the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued $ithout its

consent. But it is a4ioatic that in filin" an action, it divests itself of its soverei"n character and sheds its

iunit fro suit, descendin" to the level of an ordinar liti"ant. The PC'' cannot clai a superior or

preferred status to the !tate, even $hile assuin" to represent or act for the !tate. 48

The su""estion 49that the !tate a?es no iplied $aiver of iunit b filin" suit e4cept $hen in so

doin" it acts in, or in atters concernin", its proprietar or non)"overnental capacit, is unacceptable itattepts a distinction $ithout support in principle or precedent. 5n the contrar #

The consent of the !tate to be sued a be "iven e4pressl or ipliedl. E4press

consent a be anifested either throu"h a "eneral la$ or a special la$. &plied consent

is "iven when the State itself commences litigation or $hen it enters into a contract. 0

The iunit of the !tate fro suits does not deprive it of the ri"ht to sue private parties

in its o$n courts. The state as plaintiff a avail itself of the different fors of actions

open to private liti"ants. &n short, b ta?in" the initiative in an action a"ainst the private

parties, the state surrenders its privile"ed position and coes do$n to the level of the

defendant. The latter autoaticall ac8uires, $ithin certain liits, the ri"ht to set up

$hatever clais and other defenses he i"ht have a"ainst the state. . . . 1!inco,

Philippine Political (a$, Tenth E., pp. =)=0, citing ;.!. vs. Rin""old, + Pet. >*, + (. ed.

+//23 1

&t can hardl be doubted that in e4ercisin" the ri"ht of einent doain, the !tate e4ercises its 2us

imperii, as distin"uished fro its proprietar ri"hts or2us gestionis. Get, even in that area, it has been held

that $here private propert has been ta?en in e4propriation $ithout 9ust copensation bein" paid, the


9/9

defense of iunit fro suit cannot be set up b the !tate a"ainst an action for paent b the

o$ner. 2

The Court also finds itself unable to sustain the PC''s other principal contention, of the nullit of the

!andi"anbaans 5rder for the production and inspection of specified docuents and thin"s alle"edl in

its possession.

The Court "ives short shrift to the ar"uent that soe docuents sou"ht to be produced and inspected

had alread been presented in Court and ar?ed preliinaril as PC''s e4hibits, the ovants havin" in

fact vie$ed, scrutini7ed and even offered ob9ections thereto and ade coents thereon. 5bviousl,

there is nothin" secret or confidential about these docuents. No serious ob9ection can therefore be

presented to the desire of the private respondents to have copies of those docuents in order to stud

the soe ore or other$ise use the durin" the trial for an purpose allo$ed b la$.

The PC'' sas that soe of the docuents are non)e4istent. This it can alle"e in response to the

correspondin" 8uestion in the interro"atories, and it $ill incur no sanction for doin" so unless it is

subse8uentl established that the denial is false.

The clai that use of the docuents is proscribed b E4ecutive 5rder No. has alread been dealt $ith.

The PC'' is ho$ever at libert to alle"e and prove that said docuents fall $ithin soe other privile"e,

constitutional or statutor.

The Court finall finds that, contrar to the petitioners theor, there is "ood cause for the production and

inspection of the docuents sub9ect of the otion dated Au"ust =, /+/. + !oe of the docuents are,

accordin" to the verification of the aended coplaint, the basis of several of the aterial alle"ations of

said coplaint. 5thers, adittedl, are to be used in evidence b the plaintiff. &t is atters such as these

into $hich in8uir is precisel allo$ed b the rules of discover, to the end that the parties a ade8uatel

prepare for pre)trial and trial. The onl other docuents sou"ht to be produced are needed in relation to

the alle"ations of the counterclai. Their relevance is indisputable their disclosure a not be opposed.

5ne last $ord. Due no doubt to the deplorable unfailiarit respectin" the nature, purposes and operation

of the odes of discover earlier

entioned,4there also appears to be a $idel entertained idea that application of said odes is a

coplicated atter, undul e4pensive and dilator. Nothin" could be farther fro the truth. %or e4aple,

as $ill alread have been noted fro the precedin" discussion, all that is entailed to activate or put in

otion the process of discover b interro"atories to parties under Rule -> of the Rules of Court, is

sipl the deliver directl to a part of a letter settin" forth a list of least 8uestions $ith the re8uest that

the be ans$ered individuall. That is all. The service of such a counication on the part has the

effect of iposin" on hi the obli"ation of ans$erin" the 8uestions 3separatel and full in $ritin"

underoath,3 and servin" 3a cop of the ans$ers on the part subittin" the interro"atories $ithin fifteen

1>2 das after service of the interro"atories . . .3 - The sanctions for refusin" to a?e discover havealread been entioned. 7 !o, too, discover under Rule - is be"un b nothin" ore cople4 than the

service on a part of a letter or other $ritten counication containin" a re8uest that specific facts

therein set forth andor particular docuents copies of $hich are thereto appended, be aditted in

$ritin". 8That is all. A"ain, the receipt of such a counication b the part has the effect of iposin"

on hi the obli"ation of servin" the part re8uestin" adission $ith 3a s$orn stateent either denin"

specificall the atters of $hich an adission is re8uested or settin" forth in detail the reasons $h he

cannot truthfull either adit or den those atters,3 failin" in $hich 31e2ach of the atters of $hich

adission is re8uested shall be deeed aditted.3 9 The ta?in" of depositions in accordance $ith Rule

-6 1either on oral e4aination or b $ritten interro"atories2 $hile soe$hat less siple, is nonetheless

b no eans as coplicated as sees to be the laentabl e4tensive no

Documents

political law- pcgg vs sandiganbayan.docx