Tantuico Vs Republic

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.
, petitioner,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD
GOVERNMENT, MATEO A. T. CAPARAS, AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN,
respondents.
G.R. No. 89114

December 2, 1991
PADILLA, J.:
TOPIC: Ultimate Facts
DOCTRINE:
“The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the "ultimate
facts", and the second, the "evidentiary facts." The term "ultimate facts" as used in
Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means the essential facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken out without
leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. . . . Ultimate facts are
important and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary
right and duty, or which directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the
defendant. The term does not refer to the details of probative matter or particulars
of evidence by which these material elements are to be established. It refers to
principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the entire cause
of action rests.”
FACTS:
Republic of the Philippines filed with the Sandiganbayan Civil Case No. 0035, entitled "Republic of
the Philippines vs. Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez, et al." for reconveyance, reversion, accounting,
restitution and damages. The principal defendants are Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez, Ferdinand E.
Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos.
Petitioner Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr. was included as defendant in Civil Case No. 0035 on the theory
that: (1) he acted in unlawful concert with the principal defendants in the misappropriation and theft
of public funds, plunder of the nation's wealth, extortion, blackmail, bribery, embezzlement and other
acts of corruption, betrayal of public trust and brazen abuse of power; (2) he acted as dummy, nominee
or agent, by allowing himself to be incorporator, director, board member and/or stockholder of
corporations beneficially held and/or controlled by the principal defendants; (3) he acted singly or
collectively, and/or in unlawful concert with one another, in flagrant breach of public trust and of
their fiduciary obligations as public officers, with gross and scandalous abuse of right and power and
in brazen violation of the Constitution and laws of the Philippines, embarked upon a systematic plan
to accumulate ill-gotten wealth ; (4) he (petitioner) taking undue advantage of his position as Chairman
of the Commission on Audit and with grave failure to perform his constitutional duties as such
Chairman, acting in concert with defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, facilitated
and made possible the withdrawals, disbursements and questionable use of government funds; and
(5) he acted as dummy, nominee and/or agent by allowing himself to be used as instrument in
accumulating ill-gotten wealth through government concessions, orders and/or policies prejudicial to
plaintiff, or to be incorporator, director, or member of corporations beneficially held and/or
controlled by defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imelda R. Marcos, Benjamin (Kokoy) Romualdez and
Juliette Gomez Romualdez in order to conceal and prevent recovery of assets illegally obtained.
After his motion for production and inspection of documents was denied by respondent, petitioner
filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars. The Solicitor General opposed the motion. Respondent
Sandiganbayan promulgated a resolution denying the petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars on
the ground that the particulars sought by petitioner are evidentiary in nature. Hence, petitioner filed
the present petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint pertaining to him state only
conclusions of fact and law, inferences of facts from facts not pleaded and mere presumptions, not
ultimate facts as required by the Rules of Court.
RULING:
YES, the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint pertaining to him state only conclusions of
fact and law, inferences of facts from facts not pleaded and mere presumptions, not ultimate facts as
required by the Rules of Court.
A complaint is defined as a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the plaintiff's cause or
causes of action. Like all other pleadings allowed by the Rules of Court, 18 the complaint shall contain
in a methodical and logical form a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts on which
the plaintiff relies for his claim, omitting the statement of mere evidentiary facts.
The rules on pleading speak of two (2) kinds of facts: the first, the "ultimate facts", and the second,
the "evidentiary facts." The term "ultimate facts" as used in Sec. 3, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, means
the essential facts constituting the plaintiffs cause of action. A fact is essential if it cannot be stricken
out without leaving the statement of the cause of action insufficient. . . . Ultimate facts are important
and substantial facts which either directly form the basis of the primary right and duty, or which
directly make up the wrongful acts or omissions of the defendant. The term does not refer to the
details of probative matter or particulars of evidence by which these material elements are to be
established. It refers to principal, determinate, constitutive facts, upon the existence of which, the
entire cause of action rests.
The allegations in the complaint, above-referred to, pertaining to petitioner are, therefore, deficient in
that they merely articulate conclusions of law and presumptions unsupported by factual premises.
Hence, without the particulars prayed for in petitioner's motion for a bill of particulars, it can be said
the petitioner can not intelligently prepare his responsive pleading and for trial. Furthermore, the
particulars prayed for, such as, names of persons, names of corporations, dates, amounts involved,
specification of property for identification purposes, the particular transactions involving withdrawals
and disbursements, and a statement of other material facts as would support the conclusions and
inferences in the complaint, are not evidentiary in nature. On the contrary, those particulars are
material facts that should be clearly and definitely averred in the complaint in order that the defendant
may, in fairness, be informed of the claims made against him to the end that he may be prepared to
meet the issues at the trial.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the resolutions dated 21 April 1989 and 29 May 1989
are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The respondents are hereby ordered to PREPARE and
FILE a Bill of Particulars containing the facts prayed for by petitioner within TWENTY (20) DAYS
from notice, and should they fail to submit the said Bill of Particulars, respondent Sandiganbayan is
ordered TO EXCLUDE the herein petitioner as defendant in Civil Case No. 0035.
SO ORDERED.

Tantuico Vs Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tantuico Vs Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tantuico Vs Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR.

G.R. No. 89114

You might also like