Filtered By: Money
Money

SC asked to review decision on mortgage with UCPB


The Supreme Court has been asked to review its 2017 decision that nullified a mortgage with the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and would supposedly cost the bank about P1 billion in coco levy funds.

In a five-page letter to the SC en banc, Federation of Philippine Industries (FPI) chair Jesus Arranza urged the tribunal to look into whether the decision rendered by its five-man Third Division on August 16, 2017 had violated the Constitution and its own internal rules.

Federation of Philippine Industries chairman Jesus Aranza shows the letter he filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday, January 10, 2019, Danny Pata
Federation of Philippine Industries chairman Jesus Arranza shows the letter he filed with the Supreme Court on Thursday, January 10, 2019, Danny Pata


Arranza expressed doubts if the case had been thoroughly deliberated upon by the division members, given that three of the four justices who signed the decision became members of the division only on August 13 and 14, or two and three days before the ruling was handed down.

"How could the three above-named justices of the third division have adequately studied the cases (which I understand already consists of around 2,000 pages) only for a period of two or three days, before the decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated?" he asked.

"From the circumstances surrounding the case, one cannot help but conclude that it was not possible for the members of the Third Division to have actually deliberated upon the case... If indeed this is what happened, the constitutional requirement that there be deliberations on a case was not satisfied," he added.

Arranza said in deliberations, there should be an "active discussion of the issues of the case, the arguments raised by the parties, the facts and the applicable laws, and the conlcusions that were arrived at by the justices in a session called for the purpose."

The three members who Arranza said had joined the division only days before the decision was released were now Ombudsman Samuel Martires, now retired Noel Tijam and Alexander Gesmundo, all three voted in favor of the assailed decision.

Arranza cited internal rules of SC, which require the writer of the decision to prepare the draft decision and send to the other justices at least seven days before voting.

"It is likely that this rule was not complied with as the said three justices became members of the third division only two or three days before the decision dated August 16, 2017 was issued," he alleged.

Arranza said he was writing to the SC as a stockholder of the UCPB and a former member of the UCPB Board of Directors.

Arranza noted that the SC had earlier ruled that UCPB shares of stocks are considered part of the so-called coco levy fund and should be utilized for the benefit of the coconut farmers and the development of the coconut industry.

"Whatever action the Supreme Court will take in this case will impact on the coconut farmers and the coconut industry, in particular, and the government, in general," he said.

Arranza said the SC en banc, and no longer the Third Division, should already take up the matter.

"If an irregularity indeed attended the promulgation of the said decision, it is rather difficult to expect the same members of the third division who signed the decision to reverse themselves and/or in the process, expose the irregularity committed," Arranza added.

The assailed August 2017 decision had reversed the Court of Appeals’ March 2014 ruling that affirmed the UCPB mortgage of Revere Realty and Development Corporation over properties of spouses Felix and Carmen Chua  in Lucena City.

In 1997, Go and the Chuas had entered into a joint venture to develop the 44-hectare property in Ilayang Dupay into a subdivision but it did not push through. Still, several deeds of absolute sale were executed putting the lands in Revere’s name to hold in trust for the Chuas.

In the meantime, the Chuas executed a mortgage with UCPB to secure their personal loans and corporate obligations for the Lucena Grand Central Terminal, Inc. (LGCTI).

Unknown to the Chuas, Go and Revere took out a mortgage over the properties too. When the land was foreclosed, the Chuas were prompted to ask UCPB to apply the proceeds only to their obligations and not Go’s, but the bank did not heed the request. — MDM, GMA News

LOADING CONTENT