(An Appellate Brief Sample)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 93694 (April 24, 2012)
Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. [COCOFED], Coconut Investment
Company [CIC], COCOFED Marketing Corporation [COCOMARK], Maria Clara L.
Lobregat, Bienvenido Marquez, Jose R. Eleazar, Jr., Domingo Espina, Jose Gomez,
Celestino Sabate, Manuel Del Rosario, et al.
Vs.
Honorable Sandiganbayan First Division, Republic of the Philippines and Presidential
Commission on Good Government)

Petitioners
Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. [COCOFED], Coconut Investment
Company [CIC], COCOFED Marketing Corporation [COCOMARK], Maria Clara L.
Lobregat, Bienvenido Marquez, Jose R. Eleazar, Jr., Domingo Espina, Jose Gomez,
Celestino Sabate, Manuel Del Rosario, et al.

Prepared by:
Oliva, Ma. Stephanie Faye M.
Legal research (Set B)
Atty. Cantorias

Table of Contents

I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.

Subject Index
Assignment of Errors
Statement of the Case
Statement of Facts
Clear and Concise Statement of Issues
Heading Argument
Relief

3
4
5
6
10
11
12

Subject Index

Subdivided Complaint

Subject Matter

1.

Civil Case No. 0033-A

Anomalous Purchase and Use of First United

Bank (now United Coconut Planters Bank)

2.

Civil Case No. 0033-B

Creation of Companies Out of Coco Levy

Funds

3.

Civil Case No. 0033-C

Creation and Operation of Bugsuk Project

and Award of P998 Million Damages to
Agricultural
Investors,
Inc.

4.

Civil Case No. 0033-D

Disadvantageous Purchases and Settlement

of the Accounts of Oil Mills Out of Coco Levy
Funds

5.

Civil Case No. 0033-E

Unlawful Disbursement and Dissipation of

Coco
Levy
Funds

6.

Civil Case No. 0033-F

Acquisition

7.

Civil Case No. 0033-G

Acquisition

8.

Civil Case No. 0033-H

Behest

Assignment of Errors
3

of

SMC

shares

of
Loans

of

stock

Pepsi-Cola
and

Contracts

1. The Court has not acquired jurisdiction over the person of the movants and the
subject

matter

of

the

action.

2. Plaintiff has no cause of action because the different investments acquired and/or
organized with part of the proceeds of the so-called coconut levy were all made
pursuant to law and are owned, in law and in fact, by the coconut farmers.

3. This Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit insofar as the
COCOFED, UCPB, UNICOM, COCOMARK, COCOLIFE, CIC and CIIF
investments are sought to be forfeited for the reason that the coconut farmers
who are the lawful owners of those investments, are not included as party
defendants.

4. The PCGG Charter constitutes discriminatory legislation violative of the equal

protection

clause

of

the

1987

Constitution.

5. The PCGG Charter is unconstitutional for being a bill of attainder. It is likewise

void

for

being

an

ex-post

facto

law.

6. Movants were denied due process of law in that no preliminary investigation was
conducted by the authorized government agency.

Statement of the Case:

This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 seeks the annulment of the March 8,
1988 Resolution, June 20, 1989 Resolution and June 15, 1990 Order of the
Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. (CC) 0033 entitled Republic of the Philippines v.
Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.
In the assailed March 8, 1988 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion
for Reconsideration filed by Maria Clara L. Lobgregat, et al. of the open court Order of
the Sandiganbayan denying their request to present evidence on certain issues in their
earlier Motion to Dismiss dated October 5, 1988.
In the June 20, 1989 Resolution, the Sandiganbayan denied the Motion to
Dismiss dated October 5, 1988 filed by the defendants in CC 0033.
While in the June 15, 1990 Order, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the Board of
Directors appointed by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG)
shall operate the Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc. (COCOFED).

Statement of Facts

In 1971, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6260, otherwise known as the
Coconut Investment Act, creating the Coconut Investment Corporation (CIC) for the
declared national policy of accelerating the development of the coconut industry through
the provision of adequate medium-and long-term financing for capital investment in the
industry. To finance the CIC, RA 6260 also created the Coconut Investment Fund (CIF)
that was to be funded with collections from a levy on the sale of copra. A portion of the
funds would be placed at the disposition of COCOFED, the national association of
coconut producers with the largest membership as recognized by the Philippine
Coconut Administration, "for the maintenance and operation of its principal office which
shall be responsible for continuing liaison with the different sectors of the industries, the
government and its own mass base."
In 1973, former President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 276,
creating the Coconut Consumers Stabilization Fund (CCSF) which imposed an
additional levy on the sale of copra. The fund was intended to be utilized to subsidize
the sale of coconut-based products at prices set by the Price Control Council.
The following year, President Marcos then issued PD 582 which imposed another
levy on the sale of copra to fund the Coconut Industry Development Fund purported to
finance the establishment of a hybrid coconut seed nut farm for the development of
early-breeding and high-yielding hybrid variety of coconut trees.
Then, in 1978, President Marcos issued PD 1468 or the Revised Coconut
Industry Code which created the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) and empowered it
to impose the CCSF levy on the sale of copra and to be utilized for, among others,
"[financing] the developmental and operating expenses of the Philippine Coconut
Producers Federation including projects such as scholarships for the benefit of
deserving children of the coconut farmers."
After the EDSA Revolution, on February 28, 1986, former President Corazon
Aquino issued Executive Order No. 1 creating the PCGG with the singular task of
recovering ill-gotten wealth accumulated by President Marcos whether directly or
indirectly. Through Executive Order No. 14 dated May 7, 1986, President Aquino vested
exclusive jurisdiction over ill-gotten wealth cases with the Sandiganbayan.
Thereafter, on July 8, 1986, the PCGG issued sequestration orders over the
shares of stocks of COCOFED, while issuing freeze orders over its bank accounts.
Freeze orders were also issued against the bank accounts of COCOFED President
Maria Clara Lobregat, and COCOFED Directors Inaki Mendezona and Eladio Chatto.

On July 31, 1987, PCGG instituted an action for reconveyance before the
Sandiganbayan against Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and several other individuals, among
them, Ma. Clara Lobregat (Lobregat), and Danilo Ursua (Ursua), who, at one time or
another, occupied top management positions in either the COCOFED or the PCA, or
both. The case revolved around the provisional take-over by the PCGG of COCOFED
and its assets, and the sequestration of shares of stock in United Coconut Planters
Bank (UCPB) purportedly issued to and/or owned by over a million coconut farmers,
Cojuangco, the six (6) Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) corporations and the
fourteen (14) CIIF holding companies (who were collectively called as the "CIIF
companies"). These CIIF companies are so called for having been organized and/or
acquired as UCPB subsidiaries with the use of the CIIF levy.
The original complaint was later amended. Then, on October 5, 1988, Lobregat,
et al. filed a Motion to Dismiss.
On the heels of the motion, Lobregat, et al. then filed a Motion for Leave to
Present Evidence on their Motion to Dismiss. The Sandiganbayan denied this Motion for
Leave in open court during the hearing on January 27, 1989. Lobregat, et al. moved for
a reconsideration of the open court denial of their motion for leave to present evidence.
Consequently, the Sandiganbayan issued the first assailed Resolution dated March 6,
1989 and promulgated on March 8, 1989, denying the motion for reconsideration on the
ground that no factual issue was raised in the Motion to Dismiss that would require the
presentation of evidence.
On the other hand, the Sandiganbayan issued the second assailed Resolution
dated June 20, 1989 denying Lobregat, et al.'s Motion to Dismiss.
Concurrently, on June 7, 1990, the PCGG issued a memorandum stating that,
pursuant to the Decision dated October 29, 1989 promulgated by the Court in G.R. No.
75713 entitled Philippine Coconut Producers Federation, Inc., (COCOFED) v.
Presidential Commission on Good Government (COCOFED v. PCGG), it was
appointing the Executive Committee, Directors of the National Board and Regional
Directors of COCOFED. This prompted COCOFED to query the Sandiganbayan as to
the validity of such memorandum and ask for a temporary restraining order to stop the
PCGG from implementing the memorandum. For ease of reference, G.R. No. 75713, a
petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, sought to nullify the sequestration and
other orders issued by the PCGG against COCOFED and other enterprises, culminated
in the dismissal of said petition. However, in the assailed Order dated June 15, 1990,
the Sandiganbayan ruled that the PCGG-designated board of directors shall operate
COCOFED, stating:
Upon verbal inquiry by Atty. Manuel Laserna, Jr. as to which board should be
recognized in the interim until a resolution of the matter pending before this Court, the
Court is of the view and so hold that those designated by the PCGG as of June 11,
1983 (sic), in the afternoon, will be the operating board of the COCOFED. As earlier
stated, this recognition by this Court is without prejudice to any other act or acts which
7

the parties might wish to refer to this Court and which this Court will respond to at the
interim.
Aggrieved, COCOFED and others who claimed to have been prejudiced by the
designation of the board of directors issued by the PCGG interposed the instant petition
to challenge said PCGG appointments.
The PCGG discovered later that the sequestered properties involved in the case
were registered in the name of the corporate-owners and not in the name of the
individual defendants; thus, there was a need to further amend the complaint pursuant
to Section 26, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Under this constitutional provision, failure
to include corporate defendants which own the sequestered properties would result in
the automatic lifting of the writs of sequestration. Thus, 78 corporate defendants were
included in the newly amended complaint entitled Third Amended Complaint [Expanded
per Court-approved Plaintiff's Manifestation/Motion dated December 8, 1987] dated
August 19, 1991. COCOFED was then included as a party defendant.
In 1995, during the pendency of the instant petition, the Republic moved for the
subdivision of CC 0033 into separate trials on the various sequestered assets, attaching
the corresponding amended complaints. On March 24, 1999, the Sandiganbayan issued
a Resolution granting the Republic's motion and subdividing CC 0033 into eight (8)
separate complaints on the various subject matters, In the Third Amended Complaint
(Subdivided) dated February 28, 1995 filed in CC 0033-B, it is alleged that:
Defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., taking undue advantage of his
association, influence, connection and acting in unlawful concert with Defendants
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, and the individual defendants, embarked
upon devices, schemes and stratagems, including the use of defendant corporations as
fronts, to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of Plaintiff and the Filipino people,
such as when he:

Created and/or funded with the use of coconut levy funds,

various corporations, such as the Philippine Coconut Producers
Federation, Inc. (COCOFED), Coconut Investment Company (CIC), COCOFED
Marketing Corporation (COCOMARK) and United Coconut Planters Life
Assurance Corporation (COCOLIFE), with the active collaboration and
participation of Defendants Juan Ponce Enrile, Maria Clara Lobregat, Rolando
dela Cuesta, Jose R. Eleazar, Jr., Jose Reynaldo Morente, Eladio Chatto,
Domingo Espina, Anastacio Emano, Sr., Bienvenido Marquez, Jose Gomez, Inaki
Mendezona, Manuel del Rosario, Sulpicio Granada and Jose Martinez, Jr.,
Emmanuel Almeda, Danilo Ursua, Hermenigildo Zayco and Celestino Zabate,
most of whom compromised the interlocking officers and directors of said
companies;

Dissipated, misused and/or misappropriated a substantial part

of said coco levy funds and allowances, bonuses and other emoluments,
8

for their own personal benefits, including huge cash advances in millions
of pesos which, to date remain unliquidated and unaccounted for to the
prejudice of plaintiff and the Filipino people, finally gained ownership and
control of the United Coconut Planters Bank by misusing the names and/or
identities of the so-called "more than one million coconut farmers.
In response, Lobregat, et al. filed an Ex Abundanti Cautela Answer with
Compulsory Counterclaims to the Third Amended Complaint [Re: Creation of
Companies out of Coco Levy Funds] dated June 7, 1999.
To date, CC 0033-B remains pending with the Sandiganbayan.

Issues

1. Whether or not the Court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the movants
and

the

subject

matter

of

the

action?

2. Whether or not the plaintiff has cause of action because of the fact that the
different investments acquired and/or organized with part of the proceeds of the
so-called coconut levy were all made pursuant to law and are owned, in law and
in

fact,

by

the

coconut

farmers?

3. Whether or not the Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit
insofar as the COCOFED, UCPB, UNICOM, COCOMARK, COCOLIFE, CIC and
CIIF investments are sought to be forfeited for the reason that the coconut
farmers who are the lawful owners of those investments but were not included as
party

defendants?

4. Whether or not the PCGG Charter constitutes discriminatory legislation violative

of

the

equal

protection

clause

of

the

1987

Constitution?

5. Whether or not the PCGG Charter is unconstitutional for being a bill of attainder
and

likewise

void

for

being

an

ex-post

facto

law?

6. Whether or not the movants were denied due process of law in that no
preliminary investigation was conducted by the authorized government agency?

10

Heading Argument

GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THIS PETITION:

The series of acts and omissions of respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan in
Civil Case No. 0033 culminating in the Order of 15 June 1990 are without or in excess
of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
The refusal of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan Court to receive
petitioners' evidence is a whimsical and capricious evasion of a positive duty under the
law and particularly enjoined in this Honorable Court's Decision in G.R. No. 75713.
The inaction of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan on the Class Action
Omnibus Motion serves to perpetuate the unlawful acts of respondent PCGG.
The failure of Respondent Honorable Sandiganbayan to afford Petitioners
speedy justice is tainted with such unfairness and arbitrariness as to amount to a lack or
excess of jurisdiction.

11

Relief
This petition seeks the annulment of the March 8, 1988 Resolution, June 20, 1989
Resolution and June 15, 1990 Order of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. (CC) 0033
entitled Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo Cojuangco, et al.

12