AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Effect of a bill of particulars4/11/2024 ![]() Marcos filed a Motion to Set Aside Order of Default, 15 which was granted by the anti-graft court on October 28, 1992. Marcos and their three children, upon the motion of the PCGG. ![]() He was substituted by his estate, represented by Mrs. On September 29, 1989, former President Marcos died in Hawaii. Garchitorena, et al., 13 this Court upheld the validity of the Marcoses' default status for failure to file an answer within 60 days from Novemwhen the alias summonses were validly served in their house address in Hawaii. 11 The Marcoses, however, failed to file an answer and were accordingly declared in default by the anti-graft court on April 6, 1989. On November 10, 1988, the alias summonses on the Marcoses were served at 2338 Makiki Heights, Honolulu, Hawaii. 9 On September 15, 1988, Cruz filed his answer ad cautelam. 7 The court likewise admitted the PCGG's Expanded Complaint 8 dated April 25, 1988, then denied Cruz's omnibus motion on Jafter finding that the expanded complaint sufficiently states causes of action and that the matters alleged are specific enough to allow Cruz to prepare a responsive pleading and for trial. On April 18, 1988, the court ordered that alias summonses be served on the Marcoses who were then in exile in Hawaii. On September 18, 1987, Cruz filed an Omnibus Motion to Dismiss, strike out averments in the complaint, and for a bill of particulars. The PCGG also prayed for the payment of moral damages of P50 billion and exemplary damages of P1 billion. Specifically, Cruz allegedly purchased, in connivance with the Marcoses, assets whose values are disproportionate to their legal income, to wit: two residential lots and two condominiums in Baguio City a residential building in Makati a parcel of land and six condominium units in California, USA and a residential land in Metro Manila. On July 21, 1987, the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a Complaint 5 for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution and damages alleging that Cruz and the Marcoses stole public assets and invested them in several institutions here and abroad. (Cruz), then president and general manager of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) president of the Philippine Airlines (PAL) chairman and president of the Hotel Enterprises of the Philippines, Inc., owner of Hyatt Regency Manila chairman and president of Manila Hotel Corporation and chairman of the Commercial Bank of Manila (CBM), is the alleged crony in this case. Marcos), and their alleged cronies or dummies before the anti-graft court to recover the alleged ill-gotten wealth that they amassed during the former president's 20-year rule. Marcos and former First Lady Imelda Romualdez-Marcos (Mrs. Aquino successively sued former President Ferdinand E. The administration of then President Corazon C. (respondent) on behalf of his father's estate and (2) the MaResolution 4 which denied the government's motion for reconsideration.įrom the records, the antecedent and pertinent facts in this case are as follows: ![]() This special civil action for certiorari 1 assails two resolutions of the Sandiganbayan ("anti-graft court" or "court") issued during the preliminary legal skirmishes in this 20-year case: 2 (1) the JanuResolution 3 which granted the motion for a bill of particulars filed by executor Ferdinand R. The propriety of filing and granting of a motion for a bill of particulars filed for the estate of a defaulting and deceased defendant is the main issue in this saga of the protracted legal battle between the Philippine government and the Marcoses on alleged ill-gotten wealth. (as executor of the estate of FERDINAND E. SANDIGANBAYAN (Second Division) and FERDINAND R. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), Petitioner, v. Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence >
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |