EN BANC

[G.R. No. 88537. April 17, 1990.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (SECOND DIVISION),

WORKERS OF LIANGA BAY LOGGING CORPORATION, AND PHILIPPINE AGRI-
BUSINESS CORPORATION, Respondents.
On July 29, 1987, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the Presidential Commission
on Good Government, filed a Complaint before respondent Sandiganbayan against the late
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Peter Sabido, Roberto S. Benedicto, Luis D. Yulo,
Nicolas Dehesa, Jose R. Tengco, Jr., Rafael Sison, Cesar C. Zalamea, and Don M. Ferry for
reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages, docketed as Civil Case No.
0024. The complaint was amended expanded on January 25, 1988.

Among the assets/properties sought to be recovered are the shares of stock in the Lianga Bay
Logging Corporation and two (2) parcels of land located in Palawan known as the Yulo King
Ranch.

On February 8, 1988, Workers of Lianga Bay Logging Corporation (Workers) filed a motion for
Leave to Intervene and a Complaint for Intervention (Rollo, pp. 80-83) claiming that they own
60% of the shares of Lianga Bay Logging Corporation, a juridical entity whose assets are
sought to be recovered by petitioner in its favor.

Petitioner filed its opposition to Motion for Leave to Intervene on the grounds
that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) the Sandiganbayan lacks jurisdiction over the case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(b) the proposed intervenors have no direct, actual or material interest over the subject matter
of the case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(c) the rights of the intervenors, if any, may be amply protected in a separate proceeding."
(Rollo, p. 7)

On September 12, 1988, Philippine Agri-Business Corporation (Agri-Business) also filed a

Motion for Leave to Intervene and a Complaint-in-Intervention anchored on its claim of
ownership over two (2) parcels of land under sequestration.

Petitioner filed its Opposition to the above Motion contending that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) the allowance of the intervention would constitute an infringement of the constitutional
provision on State immunity from suit.

"(b) Intervenor has no legal interest in the matter in litigation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(c) the respondent court (Sandiganbayan) lacks jurisdiction over the action." (Rollo, p. 8).
Notwithstanding the opposition filed by petitioner, the two complaints-in-intervention were
admitted by respondent Sandiganbayan in its resolutions dated November 9, 1988 and
November 11, 1988. Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner maintains that it cannot be sued without its consent; the cause of action of intervenors
does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as expressly spelled out in PD 1606
and EO No. 14; intervenors have no legal interest in the matter in litigation; intervenors’ claims
are cognizable not by respondent Sandiganbayan but by the regular courts (Rollo, pp. 5-6).

ISSUE: Whether or not RP can invoke immunity from suit

Ruling: No,
In the case at bar, private respondents intervened in the court below as plaintiffs in intervention
by filing their respective complaints in intervention. The complaints-in-intervention do not seek
money judgment from nor do they demand any affirmative performance by the State in its
political capacity which would otherwise call for the application of immunity from suit (Ruiz and
Herrera v. Cabahug, 102 Phil. 110 [1957]), citing State Mineral Lease Commission v. Lawrence,
157 So. 897 [1934]. Herein intervenors merely seek the resolution of the issue of ownership
over the sequestered properties, i.e., whether they pertain to petitioner, defendant Peter Sabido
or to private respondents. The complaints in intervention are mere incidents of the main action
which as We shall show later, necessarily fall under the Sandiganbayan’s exclusive and original
jurisdiction.
By uniting with petitioner as plaintiffs, private respondents cannot be said to have filed a suit
against the State without its consent. The same conclusion may be arrived at had private
respondents chosen to file an answer in intervention, in effect resisting the claims of petitioner.
The State, by filing an action against an individual, divests itself of its sovereign character
thereby submitting itself open to any counterclaim (Froilan v. Pan Oriental Shipping Co., 95 Phil.
905 [1954]). After descending to the level of an ordinary citizen, the State cannot unilaterally
ascend back to its privileged position of non-suability behind the cloak of sovereign immunity in
the face of a counter suit the origin of which the State itself initiated.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red