The Supreme Court has denied a government petition to stop the Sandiganbayan from hearing a case involving a plea of a Philippine-based firm for the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) to ask the Swiss government to unfreeze its funds in a Swiss bank.
In a ruling last Aug. 14, the SC said “the truth can be determined” only if the case initiated by Officeco Holdings NV before the anti-graft court is allowed to proceed.
“Indeed, if it were true that the PCGG and the (Office of the Solicitor General) facilitated the release of two deposit accounts upon the request of (Security Bank and Trust Co.), and these accounts are similarly situated to Officeco’s frozen accounts with Bankers Trust AG (BTAG), the operation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution dictates that Officeco’s account should likewise be ordered released,” read the decision.
“This matter can properly be resolved if Civil Case No. 0164 is allowed to proceed.”
The Sandiganbayan had denied PCGG’s motion to dismiss the case filed by Officeco for the government to request Swiss authorities to have its Swiss bank assets unfrozen.
Officeco’s assets in BTAG of Zurich were among those frozen by Swiss authorities upon request of the Philippine government in 1986.
Officeco initially appealed to the Swiss district attorney for the attorney general of the Canton of Zurich to have its assets unfrozen.
However ,the attorney general of Zurich and the Swiss Federal Court turned down Officeco’s request.
In 1992, Officeco asked the Office of the Solicitor General and the PCGG to request Swiss authorities to unfreeze its assets.
The PCGG in turn required Officeco to present evidence to support its request.
Instead of complying with the PCGG’s requirement, Officeco filed a complaint before the Sandiganbayan against the OSG and the PCGG.
Officeco asked the anti-graft court to order the PCGG and the OSG to advise the Swiss government to unfreeze Officeco’s account with BTAG and to unconditionally release the account to Officeco.
The OSG and the PCGG filed a joint answer before the Sandiganbayan.
On May 12, 1995, the PCGG also filed a motion to dismiss the case filed by Officeco.
In 1996, the motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan’s 3rd Division, prompting the PCGG to elevate the case to the SC.
The PCGG said the case filed by Officeco had already been conclusively ruled upon by the Swiss Federal Court, which turned down Officeco‘s demand for the release of its Swiss deposits.
Another litigation of the same claims or demands cannot be done without violating the doctrine of res judicata or conclusiveness of judgment, the PCGG added.
Officeco countered that on two separate occasions, upon request of counsel for SBTC, the PCGG and the OSG formally advised Swiss authorities to release from the freeze orders two other accounts with BTAG.