Republic vs Marcos Case Digest G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855 ; August 4, 2009

Republic vs Marcos Case Digest 

G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855 ; August 4, 2009

PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Heirarchy of Courts

Direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunal

b) Letter of testamentary 

It is a legal document issued by a probate court that gives an executor the power to act in a fiduciary manner on behalf of the estate.

Criminal Law

a) Moral turpitude

- an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals." (Black's Law Dictionary)

- not every criminal act involves moral turpitude," and that ''as to what crime involves moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine."

- General Rule - all crimes of which fraud is an element are looked on as involving moral turpitude"

Taxation

a) Filing of an income tax return has three distinct violations:

(1) a false return,

(2) Filing of a "fraudulent return with intent to evade tax"

- Crime involving moral turpitude as it entails willfulness and fraudulent intent on the part of the individual

(3) failure to file a income tax return

- Not a crime involving moral turpitude as the mere omission is already a violation regardless of the fraudulent intent or willfulness of the individual

Remedial Law

a) Section 1718 of the Judiciary Act of 1948

The Supreme Court shall further have exclusive jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify or affirm on certiorarias the law or rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts as herein provided, in –

(1) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question;

(2) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment or toll, or any penalty imposed in relation thereto;

(3) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any inferior court is in issue;

(4) All other cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved: Provided, however, That if, in addition to constitutional, tax or jurisdictional questions, the cases mentioned in the three next preceding paragraphs also involve questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, the aggrieved party shall appeal to the Court of Appeals; and the final judgment or decision of the latter may be reviewed, revised, reversed, modified or affirmed by the Supreme Court on writ of certiorari; and

(5) Final awards, judgments, decision or orders of the Commission on Elections, Court of Tax Appeals, Court of Industrial Relations, the Public Service Commission, and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission.

FACTS: RTC acting as a probate court a in Special Proceeding, issued an Order granting letters testamentary in solidum to respondents Marcos upon filing of bond by the Marcos. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration in so far as the RTC Order granted letters testamentary to respondents. This motion was denied by the RTC. Petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Ruled 45 of the Rules of Court, questioning the aforementioned RTC Orders granting letters testamentary to respondents. But this Court referred the petition to the CA since it was the latter who has jurisdiction concurrent with this Court over the Case. Subseuqently, CA issued a Decision, dismissing the referred petition for having taken the wrong mode of appeal. CA’s basis was Supreme Court Circular 2-90. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the CA. Petitioner then files this instant Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON it was proper for the petitioner to appeal the case directly to SC.

2) WON respondents Marcos can act and serve as executors

HELD:

1) NO. Supreme Court Circular 2-90, in relation to Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 provides the instances for a direct appeal to the Supreme court from the RTC and all those instances provide that the subject matter involved must be a question of law only and no questions of fact. In the present case, petitioner Republic seeks to determine of whether or not respondents should be disqualified to act as executors. This subject matter is a question of fact. Also, the above-mentioned provision clearly shows that the other subject matter of therein petition, that is, the propriety of granting letters testamentary to respondents, do not fall within any ground which can be the subject of a direct appeal to this Court. 

Furthermore, the filing of the case directly with this Court runs afoul of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Pursuant to this doctrine, direct resort from the lower courts to the Supreme Court will not be entertained unless the appropriate remedy cannot be obtained in the lower tribunals. Hence, the proper remedy of petitioner Republic was to appeal to the CA, not to this Court.

2) YES. Section 1(c), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court defines who are incompetent to serve as executors and Marcos does not fall in any of those grounds. Respondent Marcos does not specifically fall in the ground of “want of integrity” and “conviction of an offense involving moral turpitude” (these are the grounds raised by the petitioner) since there are no evidence on record, oral or documentary, to substantiate and support the said allegation that respondent Marcos have been convicted of a number of cases.

Also, the cases filed against Imelda Marcos has been reversed by this Court. Hence, the so-called "convictions" against respondent Imelda Marcos cannot serve as a ground for her disqualification to serve as an executor.

As to the eight cases filed against respondent Ferdinand Marcos, CA acquitted respondent Ferdinand Marcos II of all the four charges. He appealed his conviction appealed his conviction relating to four violations of Section 45 of the NIRC hence those cases should not serve as a basis to disqualify him to be appointed as an executor of the will of his father. More importantly, even assuming arguendo that his conviction is later on affirmed, the same is still insufficient to disqualify him as the "failure to file an income tax return" is not a crime involving moral turpitude.