COCOFED vs.

Republic of the Philippines

Philippine Coconut, Producers Federation, Inc.

(COCOFED), Manuel V. Del Rosario, Domingo P. Espina,
Salvador P. Ballares, Joselito A. Moraleda, Paz M. Yason,
Vicente A. Cadiz, Cesaria De Luna Titular, and Raymundo
C. De Villa, Petitioners, vs. Republic of the Philippines,
respondent.
G.R. Nos. 177857-58. January 24, 2012

En Banc Decision; Justice Velasco

Constitutional Law; Bill of Rights; Rights of the Accused; Right to be

Heard; Right to Speedy Trial;

Facts:
In 1971, R.A. 6260 was enacted creating the Coconut Investment
Company to administer the Coconut Investment Fund. The declaration
of martial law in September 1972 saw the issuance of several
presidential decrees purportedly designed to improve the coconut
industry through the collection and use of the coconut levy fund. In
G.R. Nos. 177857-58, class action petitioners COCOFED and a group of
purported coconut farmers and COCOFED members, hereinafter
“COCOFED et al.” collectively seek the reversal of the judgments and
resolutions of the anti-graft court insofar as these issuances are
adverse to their interests. As a procedural issue, COCOFED, et al. and
Ursua contends that in the course of almost 20 years that the cases
have been with the anti-graft court, they have repeatedly sought leave
to adduce evidence (prior to respondent’s complete presentation of
evidence) to prove the coco farmers’ actual and beneficial ownership
of the sequestered shares. The Sandiganbayan, however, had
repeatedly and continuously disallowed such requests, thus depriving
them of their constitutional right to be heard.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not petitioners COCOFED et al. were not deprived of
their right to be heard;
(2) Whether or not the right to speedy trial was violated.

Ruling:
(1) No, petitioner COCOFED’s right to be heard had not been violated
by the mere issuance of PSJ-A and PSJ-F before they can adduce their
evidence. As it were, petitioners COCOFED et al. were able to present
documentary evidence in conjunction with its “Class Action Omnibus
Motion” dated February 23, 2001 where they appended around four
hundred (400) documents including affidavits of alleged farmers.
These petitioners manifested that said documents comprise their
evidence to prove the farmers’ ownership of the UCPB shares, which
were distributed in accordance with valid and existing laws. Lastly,
COCOFED et al. even filed their own Motion for Separate Summary
Judgment, an event reflective of their admission that there are no
more factual issues left to be determined at the level of the
Sandiganbayan. This act of filing a motion for summary judgment is a
judicial admission against COCOFED under Section 26, Rule 130 which
declares that the “act, declaration or omission of a party as to a
relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.”
Adv er ti se me nts
REPORT THIS AD

(2) No. As a matter of settled jurisprudence, but subject to equally

settled exception, an issue not raised before the trial court cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. The sporting idea forbidding one
from pulling surprises underpins this rule. For these reasons, the
instant case cannot be dismissed for the alleged violation of
petitioners’ right to a speedy disposition of the case. It must be
clarified right off that the right to a speedy disposition of case and the
accused’s right to a speedy trial are distinct, albeit kindred, guarantees,
the most obvious difference being that a speedy disposition of cases,
as provided in Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution. In fine, the
right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused and is a peculiarly
criminal law concept, while the broader right to a speedy disposition
of cases may be tapped in any proceedings conducted by state
agencies.
Advertisements