Cojuangco, Jr. v. Republic
This is a civil case (Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines) decided by the Philippine Supreme Court en banc on July 9, 2013. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Cojuangco, who questioned the Court's November 27, 2
ADVERTISEMENT
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 180705. July 9, 2013.]
EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated JULY 9, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 180705 (Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Republic of the Philippines). ” Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration dated December 21, 2012 filed by petitioner Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. (Cojuangco) in G.R. No. 180705.
After two motions for reconsideration 1 * filed on February 27, 2013 and April 2, 2013, respondent Republic of the Philippines filed its Comment on the Motion for Reconsideration on April 18, 2013. Petitioner filed its Reply (Re: Republic's Comment, dated April 18, 2013) on May 9, 2013.
Previously in our November 27, 2012 Decision, this Court affirmed with modification, Part C of the Sandiganbayan's Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Case No. 0033-A (PSJ-A) rendered on July 11, 2003, as amended by a Resolution issued on June 5, 2007. As modified by this Court, the dispositive portion in Part C of the Sandiganbayan's PSJ-A reads as follows:
C.Re: MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (RE: EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR.) dated September 18, 2002 filed by Plaintiff.
1. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 755 did not validate the Agreement between PCA and defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. dated May 25, 1975 nor did it give the Agreement the binding force of a law because of the non-publication of the said Agreement.
2. The Agreement between PCA and defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. dated May 25, 1975 is a valid contract for having the requisite consideration under Article 1318 of the Civil Code.
3. The transfer by PCA to defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. of 14,400 shares of stock of FUB (later UCPB) from the "Option Shares" and the additional FUB shares subscribed and paid by PCA, consisting of:
a. Fifteen Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Four (15,884) shares out of the authorized but unissued shares of the bank, subscribed and paid by PCA;
b. Sixty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty (64,980) shares of the increased capital stock subscribed and paid by PCA; and
c. Stock dividends declared pursuant to paragraph 5 and paragraph 11 (iv) (d) of the PCA-Cojuangco Agreement dated May 25, 1975 or the so-called "Cojuangco-UCPB shares"
is declared unconstitutional, hence null and void.
4. The above-mentioned shares of stock of the FUB/UCPB transferred to defendant Cojuangco are hereby declared conclusively owned by the Republic of the Philippines to be used only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and for the development of the coconut industry, and ordered reconveyed to the Government.
5. The UCPB shares of stock of the alleged fronts, nominees and dummies of defendant Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. which form part of the 72.2% shares of the FUB/UCPB paid for by the PCA with public funds later charged to the coconut levy funds, particularly the CCSF, belong to the plaintiff Republic of the Philippines as their true and beneficial owner.
Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner Cojuangco.
SO ORDERED.
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioner prays that the November 27, 2012 Decision be reconsidered as the Court erred in affirming with modification the Sandiganbayan's decision, and that it violated petitioner's constitutional rights to due process and non-impairment of contract. Petitioner, thus, seeks the dismissal of the complaint against him in PSJ-A.
Considering that the Motion for Reconsideration contains a mere reiteration or rehash of arguments that have already been previously pleaded, submitted and resolved by this Court in its November 27, 2012 Decision, and that the arguments therein are too unsubstantial to warrant reconsideration or modification, the Court, therefore, finds no reason to modify or abandon the challenged Decision.
No further pleadings shall be entertained. Let Entry of Judgment be made in due course." Carpio and Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., no part. Brion, J., on leave. Peralta, J., no part. (adv18)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court
Footnotes
*Footnote added.
1.Should be "motions for extension" to file comment.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU