Sandiganbayan denies motion of Palm Companies seeking return of sequestered assets | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Sandiganbayan denies motion of Palm Companies seeking return of sequestered assets
Sandiganbayan denies motion of Palm Companies seeking return of sequestered assets
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan sixth division junks the motion for execution of Palm Companies (Palm Avenue Holding Co. Inc. and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation) in the case involving the late former Leyte Governor Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez.
MANILA — The Sandiganbayan sixth division junks the motion for execution of Palm Companies (Palm Avenue Holding Co. Inc. and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation) in the case involving the late former Leyte Governor Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez.
In 1986, the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) sequestered assets, properties and records of Palm Companies supposedly linking Romualdez as the owner of Benguet Corporation shares.
In 1986, the Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) sequestered assets, properties and records of Palm Companies supposedly linking Romualdez as the owner of Benguet Corporation shares.
In its motion, Palm Companies sought a writ of execution for the October 21, 2010 and January 11, 2011 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan for the PCGG to release all the shares of stock and funds under their custody.
In its motion, Palm Companies sought a writ of execution for the October 21, 2010 and January 11, 2011 resolutions of the Sandiganbayan for the PCGG to release all the shares of stock and funds under their custody.
The anti-graft court held the motion in abeyance, citing the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on the case.
The anti-graft court held the motion in abeyance, citing the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
On August 6, 2014, the high court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, affirming the Sandiganbayan resolutions dated October 21, 2012 and January 11, 2011 for the release the shares of stock and funds to Palm Companies.
On August 6, 2014, the high court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, affirming the Sandiganbayan resolutions dated October 21, 2012 and January 11, 2011 for the release the shares of stock and funds to Palm Companies.
The SC's decision became final and executory on February 9, 2015. Due to this, Palm Companies have the writ of execution directing PCGG to release to them all shares of stock and funds that pertain to them.
The SC's decision became final and executory on February 9, 2015. Due to this, Palm Companies have the writ of execution directing PCGG to release to them all shares of stock and funds that pertain to them.
In its ruling, the anti-graft court said the motion of execution of Palm Companies was filed beyond the five-year period or on April 19, 2024.
In its ruling, the anti-graft court said the motion of execution of Palm Companies was filed beyond the five-year period or on April 19, 2024.
Under Rule 39 Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment or order may be enforced within five years from the date of its entry. After this period lapses and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment may be enforced with action.
Under Rule 39 Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court, a final and executory judgment or order may be enforced within five years from the date of its entry. After this period lapses and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, the judgment may be enforced with action.
Palm Companies only had until February 10, 2020 to file their motion for execution, since February 9 was a Sunday.
Palm Companies only had until February 10, 2020 to file their motion for execution, since February 9 was a Sunday.
In a Supreme Court ruling, it said an order may be executed after the lapse of the five-year period only in exceptional circumstances and meritorious grounds.
In a Supreme Court ruling, it said an order may be executed after the lapse of the five-year period only in exceptional circumstances and meritorious grounds.
The sixth division said the respondent 'failed to allege' or show the delayed filing of its motion was caused by the plaintiff.
The sixth division said the respondent 'failed to allege' or show the delayed filing of its motion was caused by the plaintiff.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
