COCOFED v.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

663 scra 514

January 24, 2012

FACTS:

During the Martial Law regime, then President Marcos issued several Presidential Decrees and the most
relevant among these is which permitted the use of the Fund for the acquisition of a commercial bank for
the benefit of coconut farmers and the distribution of the shares of the stock of the bank it acquired free
to the coconut farmers. The rest of the Fund was deposited to the UCPB interest free. During the EDSA
Revolution, President Corazon Aquino issued Executive Order 1 which created the PCGG which was
empowered to file cases for sequestration in the Sandiganbayan. Among the sequestered properties were
the shares of stock in the UCPB registered in the name of over a million coconut farmers held in trust
by the PCA. The Sandiganbayan allowed the sequestration by ruling in a Partial Summary Judgment that
the Coconut Levy Funds are prima facie public funds.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners were deprived of their rights when a summary judgement has been
issued.

HELD:

The court ruled that it cannot stressed enough that the Republic as well as herein petitioners were well
within their rights to move, as they in fact separately did, for a partial summary judgment. Summary
judgment may be allowed where, save for the amount of damages, there is, as shown by affidavits and
like evidentiary documents, no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue, as distinguished from one that is fictitious, contrived and
set up in bad faith, means an issue of fact that calls for the presentation of evidence.[90] Summary or
accelerated judgment, therefore, is a procedural technique aimed at weeding out sham claims or defenses
at an early stage of the litigation. Moreover, COCOFED et al. even filed their own Motion for Separate
Summary Judgment, an event reflective of their admission that there are no more factual issues left to be
determined at the level of the Sandiganbayan. This act of filing a motion for summary judgment is a
judicial admission against COCOFED under Section 26, Rule 130 which declares that the act, declaration
or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him.

Viewed in this light, the Court has to reject petitioners self-serving allegations about being deprived the
right to adduce evidence.