MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan ruled that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) will keep custody of shares of stocks and funds of sequestered companies owned by the family of the late Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez, brother of former first lady Imelda Marcos and father of current House Speaker Martin Romualdez.
A 2014 Supreme Court ruling ordered the release of the assets of Palm Avenue Holding Companies Incorporated (Palm Companies) and Palm Avenue Realty Development Corporation, but because the firms filed a motion for execution only in April 2024, it was deemed too late.
“The Palm Companies had only until February 10, 2020 — the last day of the five-year period, February 9, being a Sunday — within which to file their motion for execution,” the six-page resolution of the Sandiganbayan 6th Division on Friday, July 19, read.
The assets in contention were among the subjects of Civil Case 0035, a government lawsuit seeking forfeiture of real properties valued at P10.34 billion, and shares of stocks in various companies worth P164 million.
In November 2010, the Sandiganbayan 5th Division rejected government lawyers’ argument that the shares of stocks and funds of the Palm Companies were ill-gotten.
Maintaining that the assets belong to the family of former ambassador Romualdez, the anti-graft court ordered the lifting of government sequestration over the assets of the two companies.
The PCGG, the agency tasked to recover the Marcos family’s ill-gotten wealth, knocked on the Supreme Court’s doors in 2011, seeking a reversal of the Sandiganbayan ruling, but the High Court upheld the anti-graft court’s findings in 2014.
The Supreme Court decision became final and executory in February 2015, but the Palm Companies only filed their motion for execution nine years later.
Based on the Rules of Court of the Supreme Court, “a final and executory judgment or order may be executed on motion within five years from the date of its entry.”
The Sandiganbayan asserted that the Palm Companies failed to justify the delay in the filing of the motion for execution.
“Outside the said five-year period, any writ of execution issued pursuant to a motion is null and void. However, the Supreme Court held that an executory judgment or order may still be executed on motion even after the lapse of the said five-year period under exceptional circumstances or meritorious grounds,” the ruling read.
The resolution was written by Associate Justice Sarah Jane Fernandez; Associate Justices Michael Frederick Musngi and Kevin Narce Vivero concurred. – Rappler.com
