REPUBLIC V. GLASGOW CREDIT AND COLLECTION SERVICES, INC.

and CITYSTATE SAVINGS BANK, INC

G.R. NO. 170281
JANUARY 18, 2008

FACTS: On July 18, 2003, the Republic, as represented by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) filed a complaint in
the Manila RTC for civil forfeiture of assets (with urgent plea for issuance of a TRO and a writ of preliminary investigation)
against the bank deposits in an account maintained by Glasgow in Citystate Savings Bank, Inc (CSBI). While the trial court
granted the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction, the summons to Glasgow was returned “unserved” since it can no
longer be found at its last known address.
 October 8, 2003: omnibus motion for issuance of summons and leave of court to serve summons by publication by the
Republic
 October 15: trial court directed issuance of summons but no mention re: leave of court
 January 30, 2004: trial court archived the case allegedly for failure of the Republic to serve the alias summons but the
Republic filed another motion to reinstate the case and resolve the motion for leave of court
 May 31: court reinstated case but still did not resolve the motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication on
the reason that “any action on such motion would be untenable if not premature.” This motion remain unsolved.
 August 11, 2005: Republic filed a manifestation and ex parte motion to resolve the above motion.
 August 12: the OSG received a copy of Glasgow’s Motion to Dismiss (By Way of Special Appearance). The motion alleged
that the trial court had no jurisdiction over its person as summons had not yet been served on it; that the complaint was
premature and stated no cause of action as there was still no conviction for estafa or other criminal violations and there
was failure to prosecute on the part of the Republic.
 The Republic opposed the Motion to Dismiss but on October 27, the trial court dismissed the case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the complaint for civil forfeiture was correctly dismissed on grounds of improper venue,
insufficiency in form and substance, and failure to prosecute.

RULING: The complaint for civil forfeiture was not correctly dismissed. Petition by the Republic was granted.
1. On issue of venue: the complaint was filed in the proper venue.

Under Section 3, Title II of the Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, “A petition for civil forfeiture shall be filed in
any regional trial court of the judicial region where the monetary instrument, property or proceeds representing, involving
or relating to an unlawful activity or to a money laundering offense are located xxx”
In this case, RTC Manila, as one of the RTCs of the NCR Judicial Region was a proper venue of the Republic’s complaint for
civil forfeiture of Glasgow’s account since the account sought to be forfeited was in Pasig City, which is likewise situated
within the NCR Judicial Region.

2. On issue of sufficiency of complaint: the complaint was sufficient in form and in substance

Under Section 4 of the aforementioned Rules, “the petition for civil forfeiture shall be verified and shall contain the
following allegations: (a) the name and address of the respondent; a description with reasonable particularity of the
monetary instrument, property xxx; and (c) the acts or omissions prohibited by the specific provisions of the AMLA, which
are alleged to be the grounds relied upon for the forfeiture of the monetary instrument, property xxx.”
In this case, the verified complaint contained the name and address of Glasgow (principal office at Unit 703, 7th floor,
Citystate Center, No 709, Shaw Boulevard, Pasig City); a description of the proceeds of Glasgow’s unlawful activities in
the amount of P21,301,430.28 maintained with CSBI; and the acts prohibited by RA 9160 (AMLA), particularly suspicious
transaction reports showed that Glasgow engaged in unlawful activities of estafa and violation of the Securities Regulation
Code, the proceeds were transacted and deposited with CSBI, thereby making them appear to have originated from legit
sources and the AMLC subjected the account to a freeze order.
Pertinent provisions of RA 9160 also provide two conditions when applying for civil forfeiture:
a. When there is a suspicious transaction report or a covered transaction report deemed suspicious after investigation by
the AMLC and
b. The court has, in a petition filed for the purpose, ordered the seizure of any monetary instrument or property, in whole
or in part, directly or indirectly, related to said report.

The account of Glasgow in CSBI complies with the above conditions since it was covered by several suspicious reports and
it was placed under control of the trial court upon issuance of the writ of preliminary injunctions.
Also, there need not be any prior charge, pendency or conviction necessary for the commencement of a petition for civil
forfeiture.

3. On issue of failure to prosecute: there was no failure to prosecute

The Republic continued to exert efforts to obtain information from government agencies on the whereabouts of Glasgow
(it must be recalled that Glasgow could not be found on its last known office address during the course of the proceedings)
despite its earlier motions for summons and leave of court to serve summons by publication. There could not have been
any failure on the part of the Republic to prosecute and the delay could not be entirely ascribed to the Republic. It must
likewise be recalled that despite efforts of the Republic to prosecute such case, no prompt action was taken by the trial
court (i.e. re: motion for leave of court to serve summons by publication).