1 Republic v Eugenio Case Digest

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EUGENIO G.R. No. 174629 Februar 14! 2""#

Pe$%$%o&er' Res( Res(o& o&)e )e&$ &$s' s'

Po&e&$e'

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES re(rese&$e) b THE *NTI+,ONE- L*UNERING COUNCIL *USTR USTRI* I* ,*RT ,*RTIN INE/ E/!! C*RP C*RPIO IO ,OR ,OR* *LES! LES! TIN TING* G*!! a&) HON HON.. *NTO *NTONI NIO O ,. EUGE EUGENI NIO! O! 0EL* 0EL*SC SCO! O! R.! R.! *S PRES PRESI IIN ING G UG UGE E OF RTC! RTC! ,*NI ,*NIL* L*!! BR* BR*NCH NCH 4! 4! P*NT* NT*LEON LEON *L0*RE/ a&) LILI* CHENG TING*! J .

S$a$e3e&$ o $5e Case'

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 assailing the orders and resolutions issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and the Court of   Appeals on two different cases which arose as part of the aftermath of the ruling of  the Supreme Court in  Agan v. PIATCO PIATCO nullifying the concession agreement awarded to the Philippine International Airport Terminal Corporation PIATC!" o#er the $inoy  A%uino Internatio International nal Airport Airport Internation International al Passenger Passenger Ter Terminal minal & $AIA $AIA &" Pro'ect( Pro'ect( Fa$s'

In relation to the series of in#estigations concerning the award of the $AIA & contra contracts cts to PIA PIATC! unde underta rta)e )en n by the !mbud !mbudsma sman n and and the Compl Complian iance ce and and In#est In#estiga igatio tion n Staf Stafff CIS" CIS" of petiti petitione onerr Anti*M nti*Mone oney y +aund +aunderi ering ng Counc Councilil AM+C" AM+C",, Pantaleon Pantaleon Al#areAl#are- Al#are-" Al#are-" was charged with #iolation #iolation of RA $o( $o( &./0( The CIS conducted an intelligence database search on the financial transactions of certain indi#iduals in#ol#ed in the award, including Al#are-, which re#ealed that the latter  maintained eight 1" ban) accounts with si2 6" different ban)s( 3nder the authority granted by the Resolution, the AM+C filed an application to in%uire into or e2amine the deposits deposits or in#estments in#estments of Al#are-, Trinidad, Trinidad, +iongson and Cheng Cheng 4ong 4ong before the RTC of Ma)ati( The RTC RTC granted applica application tion being being satisfied that there e2isted probable cause to belie#e that the deposits in #arious ban) ban) acco accoun unts ts are are relate related d to the offe offense nse of #iola #iolatio tion n of Anti* nti*raf raftt and and Corru Corrupt pt Practices Act now the sub'ect of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan( The CIS proceeded to in%uire and e2amine the deposits, in#estments and related web accounts of the four( Meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor of the !ffice of the !mbudsman re%uested the AM+C to in#estigate the accounts of Al#are-, PIATC!, and se#eral other entities in#ol#ed in the nullified contract ad#erting to probable cause to belie#e that the ban) accounts were used in the commission of unlawful acti#ities that were committed in relation to the criminal cases then pending before the Sandiganbayan( In response, the AM+C authori-ed authori-ed the e2ecuti#e e2ecuti#e director of the AM+C to in%uire into and e2amine the accounts named in the letter, including one maintained by Al#are- with 7S 7an) and two other accounts in the name of Cheng 4ong with Metroban)( 8ollowing the AM+C Resolution, the Republic, through the AM+C, filed an applic applicati ation on befo before re the the Manil Manila a RTC RTC to in%uir in%uire e into into and9o and9orr e2ami e2amine ne thirt thirteen een /&" /&" accounts and two :" related web of accounts alleged as ha#ing been used to facilitate corruption corruption in the $AIA & Pro'ect( Among said accounts were the 7S 7an) account of Al#areAl#are- and the Metroban) accounts accounts of Cheng 4ong( 4ong( The Manila RTC issued an !rder granted the Ex Parte Application  Application  Al#are-,  Al#are-, through counsel, filed an 3rgent Motion to Stay ;nforcement ;nforcement of the said !rder arguing that nothing in R(A( $o( 0/6. authori-ed the AM+C to see) the authority to in%uire into ban) accounts ex parte( The Manila Manila RTC RTC issued issued an !rder  staying the enforcement of its ban) in%uiry order and gi#ing the Republic fi#e 5" days to respond to Al#are-< motion( The Republic filed an !mnibus Motion for Reconsideration which was granted by the Manila RTC denying Al#are-