Tantuico Jr. vs.

Republic
GR No. 89114 December 2, 191 204 SCRA 428

I. FACTS:
a) Complainant is a Public Office/Government Agency.
b) Defendant-movant should not take advantage of his position as Chairman of Commission
of Audit.
c) Defendant-movant acted as dummy, nominee and/or agent by allowing himself to be
instrument in accumulating ill-gotten wealth through government concessions, order
and/or policies prejudicial to plaintiff or to be incorporators, directors, or members of
corporations beneficially held and/or controlled by defendant spouses Ferdinand and
Imelda Marcos et al. in order to conceal and prevent recovery of assets illegally obtained.

II. On July 31, 1987, the Republic, represented by PCGG and assisted by the Office of the
Solicitor General filed with the Sandiganbayan against spouses Ferdinand and Imelda
Marcos et al. including Francisco Tantuico Jr. for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution, and damages. (RULE 8)

On April 11,1998, petitioner filed a motion for production and inspection of documents.
(RULE 33)

On March 9, 1998, respondent court issued a resolution denying such motion.

Consequently, petitioners filed a motion for bill of particulars. (RULE 12)

However, the Sol-Gen, for and his behalf of respondent Republic except for
Sandiganbayan, opposed the motion.

Petitioner filed his reply thereto. (RULE 6, SECTION 10)

But on April 21, 1990, respondent Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying the
motion for a bill of particulars on the ground that they are evidentiary in nature and that
the allegations in the expanded complaint are clear and sufficient enough for the
defendant-movant to know the nature and scope of the causes of action upon which the
plaintiff seeks relief. They provide factual scenario coupled with common averments and
further specified in specific averments.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration. (RULE 37)

But was denied by respondent Sandiganbayan in its resolution dated May 29, 1990.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the complaint against petitioner Tantuico Jr. averred allegations with
sufficient definiteness/particularity to enable him to properly prepare his response
pleading or to prepare for trial.
 Held:
The allegations in the complaint are deficient. They merely articulate conclusions of law
and presumptions unsupported by factual premises. Hence, without the particulars prayed
for in petitioners motion for bill of particulars, it can be said that petitioner cannot
intelligently prepare his answer and for trial.

***names of persons/ corporation, dates, amounts involved, specification of property for

identification purposes, particular transactions involving withdrawals and disbursements
and statement of other material facts that would support conclusions in the complaint are
NOT evidentiary in nature.
However, those particulars are material facts that should be clearly and definitely
averred in the complaint to inform the defendant of the claims made against him.

*** RULE 8, section 1.

Issue:
Whether or not Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the
disputed resolution.

Held:
In light of the foregoing, Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction in promulgating the questioned
resolution.

***Rule 12 - Bill of particulars

***Ultmate facts those facts which are important and substantial which either directly form the
basis of the primary right and duty or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of
the defendant.
- Refers to the principal, determinate, constitutive facts upon which the entire
cause of action rests.

***Evidentiary facts those facts which are not necessary for determination of the ultimate
facts. They are the premises upon which conclusions of ultimate facts are based.
 Samar II Electric Coop Inc. (SAMELCO) vs. Salcedo Jr.
GR No. 173840 April 25, 2012 671 SCRA 78

I. FACTS:
a) Respondent was a member of the SAMELCO II Board of Directors, elected thereto in
2002-2005. Thus, he has the right to be represented and to participate in all board
meetings and deliberations and to approve policies and resolutions.
b) Petitioner should respect all the rights of Salcedo Jr. as a member of the Board of
Directors.
c) SAMELCO II disallowed private respondent to attend succeeding meetings of the Board
of Directors effective February 2005 until the end of his term as director by virtue of
Resolution No. 5 series of 2005.
Plaintiff also disqualified him for 1 term to run as a candidate for director in the
upcoming district elections.

II. Private respondent filed an urgent petition for prohibition with prayer for nullification of
resolution no. 5 and a TRO and/or a writ of preliminary injuction. (RULE 65, SECTION
2)

Public respondent issued one, effective for 72 hours and was later on extended for 17
days.

Individual petitioners answered, raising as their defense lack of jurisdiction of the RTC
over the subject matter of the case. (RULE 6, SECTION 4)

On May 6, 2005, the RTC judge sustained the jurisdiction of the court and barred the
petitioners and/or representatives from enforcing Resolution No. 5.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. (RULE 37)

On September 15, 2005, the motion was denied.

Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, imputing
grave abuse of discretion on the part of RTC. (RULE 65, SECTION 1)

The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari.

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. (RULE 37)

On July 12, 2016, the CA denied the said motion.

III. ISSUE:
 Whether the RTC or the NEA (National Electrification Administration) has primary
jurisdiction over the question of the validity of the Board Resolution No. 5 issued by the
Board of Directors.

IV. HELD:
Such matter is within the powers of the NEA as expressed in Section 5 and 7 of PD No.
1645. Hence, to sustain the petition for prohibition filed with the RTC would constitute
an unnecessary intrusion into the NEAs power of supervision and control over the
electric coop.

Furthermore, it is true that while the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition
filed by the respondent, the NEA, in the exercise of supervision and control, has primary
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the subject resolution.

The availability of administrative remedy via a complaint filed before the NEA precludes
respondent from filing a petition for prohibition before the court. In order that the
prohibition will lie, petitioner must first exhaust all administrative remedies.

***Primary jurisdiction applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts and
comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues,
which under a regulatory scheme, has been placed within the special competence of an
administrative agency.

***Exhaustion of administrative remedies before a party is allowed to seek intervention

of the courts, he must first avail himself of all administrative remedies available.
Exceptions are:

a) Estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;

b) The challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of
jurisdiction;
c) Unreasonable delay will prejudice the complainant;
d) Amount involve is relatively so small to make the rule impractical/oppressive;
e) Question involved is purely legal;
f) Judicial intervention is urgent;
g) Application of doctrine may cause irreparable damage;
h) Controverted acts violate due process:
i) Issue non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
j) No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy;
k) Strong public interest is involved;
l) Quo warranto proceedings.