In a 10-page decision, the anti-graft court’s fifth division said the PNB’s argument that the government should first provide for the funds — now the subject of an ownership suit between alleged Marcos dummy Vicente Chuidian and the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) — was "untenable."
Presiding Justice and fifth division head Minita Chico-Nazario, along with fellow Justices Ma. Cristina Cortez Estrada and Diosdado Peralta, said there was no need for PNB to demand a writ of execution, since the remittance order was a "mere directive and not an award."
"It is an interlocutory order, since it does not determine who is entitled thereto. It merely seeks to preserve the money," the Sandiganbayan order said. "Thus, no writ of execution is necessary to implement or enforce the same. The SC remittance order should be enforced, for it is a mere directive and not an award."
In August 1999, the Sandiganbayan reversed its November 1998 ruling denying Chuidian’s request to unfreeze the $4.4 million letter of credit (LC) because the funds might be in danger of dissipation over the years. The money was held in custody by the Sandiganbayan since 1986.
"We find merit in the connection of (Chuidian) that to deposit the proceeds of the LC into an interest-bearing account will not result in the dissipation of its status, condition, integrity or value," Nazario said, especially since the matter of its ownership remains unresolved.
The SC then upheld the Sandiganbayan ruling, which ordered the remittance of the money from PNB to the LandBank under a "special time deposit" account." The January 2001 ruling of the high court became final and executory six months later.
Nevertheless, the magistrates ordered the Sheriff and Security Services of the Sandiganbayan to carry out the decision and make sure the money is remitted to the PNB.
"Finding no justification not to enforce our resolution, the Sheriff and Security Service of this court is directed to implement the same, pursuant to the SC decision on the Chuidian case."
Chuidian’s motion to cite PNB in a complaint over its refusal to heed the SC order was denied, since the jurists found too many loopholes. Among them were Chuidian’s failure to pay docket fees ; having "unverified motion"; absence of supporting documents; absence of certification of non-forum shopping, among others.