REPUBLIC (THRU PCGG) V MIGRINO189 SCRA 289CORTES; August 30, 1990

NATUREPetition for certiorari, prohibition and/or mandamus with prayer for the issuance of awrit of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order on the RTC Pasigorders denying petitioners' Motion to Dismiss and Opposition and granting privaterespondent's application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Petitionseeks the annulment of the two orders, the issuance of an injunction to enjoinrespondent judge from proceeding with Civil Case No. 57092 and, finally, the dismissalof the case before the trial court.

FACTS- This case puts in issue the authority of the Presidential Commission on GoodGovernment (PCGG), through the New Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-GraftBoard (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), to investigate and cause theprosecution of petitioner, a retired military officer, for violation of RA 3019 and 1379.- May 13, 1986 > PCGG Chairman Jovito R. Salonga created, through an order, theNew Armed Forces of the Philippines Anti-Graft Board which> investigated the unexplained wealth and corrupt practices of AFP personnel, bothretired and in active service> primarily charged with the task of investigating cases of alleged violations of theAnti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)> make necessary recommendations to appropriate government agencies andinstrumentalities with respect to the action to be taken thereon based on its findings- October 31, 1987 > Acting on information received by the Board, which indicated theacquisition of wealth beyond his lawful income Lt. Col. Troadio Tecson (ret.) wasrequired by the Board to submit his explanation/comment together with his supportingevidence by this date. Tecson requested, and was granted, several postponements,but was unable to produce his supporting evidence because they were allegedly in thecustody of his bookkeeper who had gone abroad.- June 30, 1988 > The Board proceeded with its investigation and submitted itsresolution recommending that Tecson be prosecuted and tried for violation of RA 3019and RA 1379.- The case was set for preliminary investigation by the PCGG. Tecson moved todismiss the case on the ff grounds that:(1) PCGG has no jurisdiction over his person(2) action against him under RA 1379 has already prescribed(3) EO 14, insofar as it suspended the provisions of RA 1379 on prescription of actions,was inapplicable to his case(4) having retired from the AFP on May 9, 1984, he was now beyond the reach of RA3019.

 The Board opposed the motion to dismiss.- February 8, 1989 > In a resolution, PCGG denied the motion to dismiss for lack of merit.- March 8, 1989 > Tecson moved for reconsideration but was denied by the PCGG in aresolution- March 20, 1989 at 2:00 p.m. > Tecson was directed to submit his counter-affidavitand other controverting evidence- March 13, 1989 > Tecson filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunctionwith RTC Pasig. PCGG filed a motion to dismiss and opposed the application for theissuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the principal ground that RTC had no

 jurisdiction over the Board, citing the case of PCGG v. Peña (1988). Tecson opposedthe motion to dismiss. PCGG replied to the opposition.- June 23, 1989 >Judge Migrino denied PCGG’s motion to dismiss

- June 26, 1989 > Judge Migrino granted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining PCGG from investigating or prosecuting Tecson underRA 3019 and 1379 upon the filing of a bond of P20,000.00- August 29, 1989 > SC issued a restraining order enjoining Judge Migrino fromenforcing his orders dated June 23, 1989 and June 26, 1989 and from proceeding withthe Civil Case- Tecson filed his comment, to which PCGG filed a reply. A rejoinder to the reply wasfiled by PCGG. The Court gave due course to the petition and the parties filed theirmemoranda. Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted.

ISSUEWON Judge Migrino gravely abused his discretion or acted without or in excess of 

  jurisdiction in issuing the assailed order dated June 26, 1989 enjoining PCGG, theBoard from investigating and prosecuting Tecson for violation of RA 3019, otherwiseknown as Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act and RA 1379, otherwise known as AnAct for the Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property

HELD YESRatio  Those who wish to question or challenge the PCGG's acts or orders must seekrecourse in the Sandiganbayan, which is vested with exclusive and original

 jurisdiction. The Sandiganbayan's decisions and final orders are in turn subject toreview on certiorari exclusively by this Court. (PCGG v Peña ). PCGG v. Aquino(1988), Soriano III v. Yuson (1988) and Olaguer v. RTC (1989) also enjoined theregional trial courts from interfering with the actions of the PCGG.Reasoning- SC is confronted with a situation wherein the PCGG acted in excess of its jurisdictionand, hence, may be enjoined from doing so, but the court that issued the injunctionagainst the PCGG has not been vested by law with jurisdiction over it and, thus, theinjunction issued was null and void.- Judge Migrino clearly acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction when he tookcognizance of Civil Case No. 57092 and issued the writ of preliminary injunctionagainst the PCGG. The nullification of the assailed order of Judge Migrino issuing thewrit of preliminary injunction is therefore in order. Likewise, Judge Migrino must beenjoined from proceeding with Civil Case No. 57092.- But in view of the patent lack of authority of the PCGG to investigate and cause theprosecution of private respondent for violation of RA 3019 and 1379, the PCGG mustalso be enjoined from proceeding with the case, without prejudice to any action thatmay be taken by the proper prosecutory agency. The rule of law mandates that anagency of government be allowed to exercise only the powers granted it.

> PCGG (EO 1), was created due to the urgent need to recover the ill-gotten wealthamassed by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, his immediate family, relatives,and close associates both here and abroad including the takeover or sequestrationof all business enterprises and entities owned or controlled by them, during hisadministration, directly or through nominees, by taking undue advantage of theirpublic office and/or using their powers, authority, influence, connections orrelationship. Even though the alleged unlawful accumulation of wealth was doneduring the administration of Pres. Marcos, what has to be inquired into is WONprivate respondent acted as a "subordinate" of Pres. Marcos within thecontemplation of EO 1 when he allegedly unlawfully acquired the properties.> It does not suffice that Tecson is or was a government official or employee duringthe administration of former Pres. Marcos. There must be a prima facie showing thatthe respondent unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of his close association orrelation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife. This is so because otherwise therespondent's case will fall under existing general laws and procedures on thematter. RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, penalizes the corruptpractices of any public officer. Under RA 1379 (An Act Declaring Forfeited in Favorof the State Any Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public

 

Officer or Employee and Providing for the Procedure Therefor), whenever any publicofficer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of propertywhich is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employeeand to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property,said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired [Sec.2]. The Solicitor General shall file the petition and prosecute the case in behalf of the Republic, after preliminary investigation by the provincial or city prosecutor> Moreover, the record shows that private respondent was being investigated forunlawfully acquired wealth under RA 3019 and 1379, and not under EO1, 2, 14 and14-A.

- The PCGG cannot do more than what it was empowered to do. Its powers arelimited. Its task is limited to the recovery of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses, theirrelatives and cronies. The PCGG cannot, through an order of its chairman, grant itself additional powers not contemplated in its enabling law.- The defense of prescription as Tecson already retired 6 years ago cannot hold water.It must be pointed out that Sec 2 of RA 1379 should be deemed amended or repealedby Article XI, section 15 of the 1987 Constitution which provides that "[t]he right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees,from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred by prescription,laches, or estoppel." Considering that Sec 2 of RA 1379 was deemed amended orrepealed before the prescriptive period provided therein had lapsed insofar as Tecsonis concerned, we cannot say that he had already acquired a vested right that may notbe prejudiced by a subsequent enactment. Moreover, to bar the Government fromrecovering ill-gotten wealth would result in the validation or legitimization of theunlawful acquisition, a consequence at variance with the clear intent of RA 1379,which provides:

SEC. 11. Laws on prescription. The laws concerning acquisitive prescription andlimitation of actions cannot be invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, inrespect to any property unlawfully acquired by him.

 Thus, we hold that the appropriate prosecutory agencies, i.e., the city or provincialprosecutor and the Solicitor General under Sec 2 of RA 1379, may still investigate thecase and file the petition for the forfeiture of unlawfully acquired wealth againstprivate respondent, now a private citizen.Disposition the order of Judge Migrino dated June 26, 1989 in Civil Case No. 57092 isNULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. Judge Migrino is ORDERED to dismiss Civil Case No. 57092.

 The temporary restraining order issued by the Court on August 29, 1989 is MADEPERMANENT. The PCGG is ENJOINED from proceeding with the investigation andprosecution of Tecson in I.S. No. 37, without prejudice to his investigation andprosecution by the appropriate prosecutory agency.