Photo from Unsplash | Jakub Żerdzicki
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Since General Ligot, et al., Paragas, and Yambao failed to adduce sufficient proof to rebut the presumption, the properties in Civil Case No. 0197 were properly forfeited in favor of the government. Moreover, General Ligot was a public officer, acquired a considerable amount of money during his tenure, and the amassed bank deposits and investment accounts traceable to him were manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. Since General Ligot, et al. failed to controvert the presumption, the bank deposits and investment accounts were likewise forfeitable in favor of the Republic.
These consolidated petitions stem from two forfeiture cases filed by the Republic against Lieutenant General Jacinto C. Ligot and his family, on the ground that the properties and bank accounts accumulated during his service were manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income.
The controversy began with a lifestyle investigation by the Ombudsman, which compared General Ligot’s SALNs from 1982 to 2003 with the actual properties registered in his name and in the names of his wife, children, and relatives. The investigation revealed that assets amounting to around PHP135 million appeared to have been unlawfully acquired.
Civil Case No. 0197
Civil Case No. 0197 involved a petition for forfeiture filed by respondent Republic of the Philippines against General Ligot; his wife, Erlinda; their children, Paulo, Riza, and Miguel; as well as his sister, Miguela Ligot-Paragas and brother-in-law, Edgardo Tecson Yambao. The controversy originated from a lifestyle investigation conducted by the Ombudsman to determine whether the wealth and properties accumulated by General Ligot while in active government service were manifestly disproportionate to his salary and other lawful income. The Ombudsman’s probe into General Ligot’s SALNs from 1982 to 2003, as compared to the actual assets declared in his name and in the name of his close family members, raised suspicion that the funds and properties valued approximately at One Hundred Thirty-Five Million Pesos (PhP135,000,000) were acquired unlawfully. This led to the filing of the petition before the Sandiganbayan.
The parties stipulated, among others, that: General Ligot, et al. admitted General Ligot’s service record and the contents of his SALNs from 1982-2003; for the period covering 1982 to 2003, total income less declared expenses equated to PHP3,411,743.59; Erlinda appeared as the registered owner of the Essensa property; General Ligot and Erlinda held funds in AFPSLAI; General Ligot and Erlinda had interest in and owned majority of Parmil Farms, Inc.; the United States properties appeared to have been purchased by Erlinda; and Yambao did not file income tax returns from 1999 to 2004.
In its February 3, 2021 Decision, the Sandiganbayan granted the petition in part and declared properties amounting to PHP102,126,353.46 as having been unlawfully acquired and subject to forfeiture. It held that the prima facie presumption under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 applied because: (1) General Ligot was a public officer; (2) he acquired a considerable amount of money or property during his tenure; and (3) the amassed assets were manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 (Bank Accounts)
Eight years after the filing of the petition in Civil Case No. 0197, the Republic filed another petition for forfeiture against General Ligot, et al.; Yambao; and Gilda Y. Alfonso-Velasquez, involving bank deposits and investment accounts summarized by the Sandiganbayan in the total amount of PHP55,596,694.17. The Republic reasoned that neither amending the petition nor filing a supplemental petition in Civil Case No. 0197 was possible as it had already completed its presentation of evidence, and in any case, the bank deposits and investment accounts were not included in Civil Case No. 0197.
In the May 26, 2021 Decision, the Sandiganbayan granted the petition insofar as General Ligot, et al. and Velasquez were concerned, but dismissed the same with respect to Yambao. It made permanent the writ of attachment, except as to Yambao’s accounts. It held that the Republic did not violate the rule against splitting a single cause of action and that there was no violation of the laws on the secrecy of bank deposits. It further held that the Republic was able to provide sufficient proof for the prima facie presumption under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 to arise
The issue in this case is whether the forfeiture of the real and personal properties under the names of General Ligot, et al, Yambao, and Paragas in Civil Case No. 0917, the bank deposits, and investments accounts of General Ligot, et al. and Velasquez in Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 are proper?
The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
The Court emphasized that the cases are rooted in petitions for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, a statutory measure against public officers or employees who, during their tenure in government service, have acquired properties manifestly disproportionate to their salaries or other lawful income. Proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379 are civil in nature, and the quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence.
The Court reiterated that for the prima facie presumption under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379 to apply, the following elements must concur:
- the offender is a public officer or employee;
- he or she must have acquired a considerable amount of money or property during incumbency; and
- the amount is manifestly out of proportion to the public officer’s salary and other lawful income.
On the Properties (Civil Case No. 0197)
The Court held that Republic Act No. 1379 covers not only properties directly under the name of the public officer or employee, but also those concealed or transferred to the spouse, relative, or any other person, so long as the true ownership is traceable to the public officer or employee.
The Court sustained the Sandiganbayan’s findings on the properties in the United States, the Paseo Parkview condominium units, the land in Tanay, Rizal, the lands in Malaybalay City, the Bukidnon properties, the Essensa condominium unit, and the AFPSLAI deposits. It found that the evidence showed that these properties were properly attributable and traceable to General Ligot, and that the explanations of General Ligot, et al., Paragas, and Yambao were unsupported or unconvincing.
On the third requisite, the Court echoed the Sandiganbayan’s computation that from 1982 to 2004, General Ligot’s disposable income accumulated only to PHP9,154,685.95, while his family’s acquired properties during the same period showed a net deficit of at least PHP101,761,835.64. This glaring disparity satisfied the law’s criteria of manifest disproportionality. Since General Ligot, et al., Paragas, and Yambao failed to adduce sufficient proof to rebut the presumption, the properties in Civil Case No. 0197 were properly forfeited in favor of the government.
On the Bank Accounts (Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001)
The Court rejected the defenses of splitting of causes of action and litis pendentia.
On the first, it held that there was no violation of the rule against splitting causes of action because the subject bank deposits and investment accounts in Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 were not included in Civil Case No. 0197, and the evidence to prove the acquisition and ownership of the subject properties in the two cases would be entirely different and separate from one another.
On the second, the Court held that there was no litis pendentia between Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 and AMLC Case No. 11-002-22. While the first requisite held true, the second and third did not. Civil Case No. SB-13-CVL-0001 was based on forfeiture proceedings under Republic Act No. 1379, while AMLC Case No. 11-002-22 was based on Republic Act No. 9160. The rights asserted and reliefs prayed for were not substantially identical, and a judgment in one would not be res judicata in the other.
The Court likewise held that there was no violation of the laws on bank secrecy. Proceedings on unexplained wealth are now encompassed within the exceptions to Republic Act No. 1405, particularly when the bank deposits themselves are the subject of forfeiture. As to the CFSI account in the name of Velasquez, the Court agreed with the Sandiganbayan that Republic Act No. 6426 did not apply because CFSI is not a bank authorized by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to act as a foreign currency deposit unit.
Finally, the Court held that the Republic established the requisites under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379. General Ligot was a public officer, acquired a considerable amount of money during his tenure, and the amassed bank deposits and investment accounts traceable to him were manifestly disproportionate to his lawful income. Since General Ligot, et al. failed to controvert the presumption, the bank deposits and investment accounts were likewise forfeitable in favor of the Republic.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
Leave a Reply