Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 130716 May 19, 1999

FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner,

vs.
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG) and MAGTANGGOL
GUNIGUNDO, (in his capacity as chairman of the PCGG), respondents, GLORIA A. JOPSON,
CELNAN A. JOPSON, SCARLET A. JOPSON, and TERESA A. JOPSON, petitioners-in-
intervention.

RESOLUTION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Before the Court are (1) a "Motion for Leave to Intervene with Motion for Leave to File the Attached
Partial Motion for Reconsideration . . ." and (2) "Partial Motion for Reconsideration," both filed on
January 22, 1999, as well as movants' Memorandum of Authorities filed on March 16, 1999.

Movants Ma. Imelda Marcos-Manotoc, Ferdinand R. Marcos II and Irene Marcos-Araneta allege that
they are parties and signatories 1 to the General and Supplemental Agreements dated December 28,
1993, which this Court, in its Decision promulgated on December 9, 1998, declared "NULL AND
VOID for being contrary to law and the Constitution." As such, they claim to "have a legal interest in
the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties or an interest against both as to
warrant their intervention." They add that their exclusion from the instant case resulted in a denial of
their constitutional rights to due process and to equal protection of the laws. They also raise the
"principle of hierarchical administration of justice" to impugn the Court's cognizance of petitioner's
direct action before it.

The motions are not meritorious.

Intervention Not Allowed

After Final Judgment

First, we cannot allow the Motion for Leave to Intervene at this late stage of the proceedings. Section
2, Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, provides that a motion to intervene should be filed "before rendition
of judgment . . ." Our Decision was promulgated December 9, 1998, while movants came to us only
on January 22, 1999. Intervention can no longer be allowed in a case already terminated by the final
judgment. 2

Second, they do not even offer any valid plausible excuse for such late quest to assert their alleged
rights. Indeed, they may have no cogent reason at all. As Petitioner Chavez asserts, 3 the original
petition, which was filed on October 3, 1997, was well-publicized. So were its proceedings,
particularly the oral arguments heard on March 16, 1998. Movants have long been back in the
mainstream of Philippine political and social life. Indeed, they could not (and in fact did not) even
feign unawareness of the petition prior to its disposition.
Third, the assailed Decision has become final and executory; the original parties have not filed any
motion for reconsideration, and the period for doing so has long lapsed. Indeed, the movants are
now legally barred from seeking leave to participate in this proceeding. Nevertheless, we shall tackle
their substantive arguments, most of which have been taken up in said Decision, so as to finally
dispose any allegation, even in the remote future, of lack of due process or violation of the right to
equal protection.

No Denial of Due Process

Movants claim that their exclusion from the proceeding regarding the Agreements to which they
were parties and signatories was a denial of "their property right to contract without due process of
law."

We rule that the movants are merely incidental, not indispensable, parties to the instant case. Being
contractors to the General and Supplemental Agreements involving their supposed properties, they
claim that their interests are affected by the petition. However, as exhaustively discussed in the
assailed Decision, the Agreements undeniably contain terms an condition that are clearly contrary to
the Constitution and the laws and are not subject to compromise. Such terms and conditions cannot
be granted by the PCGG to anyone, not just to movants. Being so, no argument of the contractors
will make such illegal and unconstitutional stipulations pass the test of validity. 4 The void agreement
will not be rendered operative by the parties' alleges performance (partial or full) of their respective
prestations. A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void ab intio and vests no
rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all. 5 In legal terms, the movants have
really no interest to protect or right to assert in this proceeding. Contrary to their allegations, no
infraction upon their rights has been committed.

The original petition of Francisco I. Chavez sought to enforce a constitutional right against the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and to determine whether the latter has
been acting within the bounds of its authority. In the process of adjudication, there is no need to call
on each and every party whom said agency has contracted with.

In any event, we are now ruling on the merits of the arguments raised by movants; hence, they can
no longer complain of not having been heard in this proceeding.

Petition Treated as an Exception to

the Principle of Hierarchical

Administration of Justice

Movants allege that despite petitioner's own statement that he did not intended "to stop or delay . . .
the proceedings involving the subject agreements as an incident before the Sandiganbayan," this
Court ruled the validity of the said Agreements. They submit that it thereby preempted the
Sandiganbayan and rendered moot the three-year proceedings so far undertaken by the latter court
regarding the same. Movants pray that the proceedings before the anti-graft court be allowed to take
their due course, consistent with the principle of the hierarchical administration of justice.

This matter has been discussed and ruled upon in the assailed Decision. Movants have not raised
any new argument that has not been taken up. In any event, we wish to point out that the principle of
the hierarchy of the courts generally applies to cases involving factual question. The oft-repeated
justification for invoking it is that such cases do not only impose upon the precious time of the Court
but, more important, inevitably result in their delayed adjudication. Often, such cases have to be
remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum or as better equipped t resolve to the
issues, since the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 6 Inasmuch as the petition at bar involves only
constitutional and legal questions concerning public interest, the Court resolved to exercise primary
jurisdiction on the matter.
Moreover, in taking jurisdiction over the Chavez petition, the Court actually avoided unnecessary
delays and expenses in the resolution of the ill-gotten wealth cases, which have been pending for
about twelve years now. With this Decision, the Sandiganbayan may now more speedily resolves
the merits of Civil Case No. 141. Finally, it is an elementary rule that this Court may at its sound
discretion suspend procedural rules in the interest of substantial justice. 7

Petition Sought to Define

Scope of Right to Information

Movants insist that there was "nothing "secret" or "furtive" about the agreements as to warrant their
compulsory disclosure by the Honorable Court . . .." They submit that when they filed their Motion for
Approval of Compromise Agreements before the Sandiganbayan, they practically "opened to public
scrutiny the agreements and everything else related thereto."

In our Decision, we have already discussed this point and, hence, shall no longer belabor it. Suffice
it to say that in our Decision, we ruled that the Chavez petition was not confined to the conclude
terms contained in the Agreements, but likewise concerned other ongoing and future negotiations
and agreement, perfected or not. It sought a precise interpretation of the scope of the twin
constitutional provisions on "public transactions." It was therefore not endered moot and academic
simply by the public disclosure of the subject Agreements.

Alleged Partial Implementation

of Agreements Immaterial

The movants also claim that PCGG's grant to their mother of access rights to one of their
sequestered properties may be equivalent to an implied ratification of the Agreements. As we have
ruled, the subject Agreements are null and void for being contrary to the Constitution and the laws.
Being null and void, they are not subject to ratification. 8Neither will they acquire validity through the
passage of time. 9

Petition Presented Actual

Case and Judicial Question

We reiterate that mandamus, over which this Court has original jurisdiction, is proper recourse for a
citizen to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially
when mandated by the Constitution. As aptly pointed out by Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, 10 "procedural
rules . . . [are] not cogent reasons to deny to the Court its taking cognizance of the case."

There is no political question involved here. The power and the authority of the PCGG to
compromise is not the issue. In fact, we have not prohibited or restrained it from doing so. But when
the compromise entered into palpably violated the Constitution and the laws, this Court is duty-
bound to strike it down as null and void. Clearly, by violating the Constitution and the laws, the
PCGG gravely abused its discretion. 11

In sum, we hold that the motions are procedurally flawed and that, at this late stage, intervention can
no longer be allowed. Moreover, movants are not indispensable parties to this suit which principally
assails the constitutionality and legality of PCGG's exercise of its discretion. In any event, the Court
has ruled on the merits of movants' claims. Hence, they can no longer complain, however remotely,
of deprivation of due process or of equal protection of the law.

WHEREFORE, the motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit. Let the Decision of this Court,
dated December 9, 1998, be now entered. 1âw phi 1.nêt
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., CJ., Melo, Vitug and Quisumbing, JJ., concur.

#Footnotes

1 The Court noted in its Decision of December 9, 1998 that Ferdinand R. Marcos II did not
sign either of the Agreements. By filing these Motion to Intervene and Motion for Partial
Reconsideration, Ferdinand R. Marcos II may now be deemed to have adhered to said
Agreements.

2 Rabino v. Cruz, 222 SCRA 493, 501, May 24, 1993; citing Lorenzana v. Cayetano, 78
SCRA 485, 490-492 (1977).

3 In his Motion for Issuance/Release of Entry of Judgment, dated March 19, 1999; rollo, pp.
528-566.

4 See Development Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, 116 SCRA 636 (1982);
Sarsosa vda. de Barsobia v. Cueno, 113 SCRA 547 (1982); Yap v. Grageda, 121 SCRA 244
(1983).

5 Yuchengco Inc. v. Velayo, 115 SCRA 307 (1982). Also Tongoy v. Court of Appeals, 123
SCRA 99 (1983), we further said:

The following are the most fundamental characteristics of void or inexistent contracts:

1) As a general rule, they produce no legal effects whatsoever in accordance

with the principle "quod nullum est nullum producit effectum."

2) They are not susceptible of ratification.

3) The right to set up the defense of inexistence or absolute nullity cannot be

waived or renounced.

4) The action or defense of inexistence or absolute nullity is imprescriptible.

5) The inexistence or absolute nullity of a contract cannot be invoked by

person whose interests are not directly affected (p. 444, Comments and
Jurisprudence Obligations and Contracts, Jurado, 1969 Ed.; emphasis
supplied)."

6 Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 633 (January 27, 1993); Gordon v. Executive Secretary,
GR. No. 134071, Resolution dated July 7, 1998 (both cited by the movants in their Partial
Motion for Reconsideration).

7 Ramos v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 34, 51-52 (March 3, 1997); Ysmael v. Court of
Appeals, 273 SCRA 165, 181 (June 10, 1997).

8 Art. 1409, Civil Code; Ouano v. Court of Appeals, 188 SCRA 799 (August 21, 1990); Oliver
v. Court of Appeals, 234 SCRA 367 (July 21, 1994).

9 Gayapanao v. IAC, 199 SCRA 309 (July 17, 1991).

10 See Separate Opinion to the main Decision promulgated on December 9, 1998.11

Guingona Jr. v. Gonzales, 214 SCRA 789 (October 20, 1992).