Cesar E.A. Virata v.

Sandiganbayan
GR 114331 | 27 May 1997 | J. Torres, Jr.
Digest by: Jocs Dilag (kind of long because I placed here the details of the Bill of Particulars. Basta
maraming butas daw ‘yung Bill of Particulars kasi ang daming questions na pwede pa itanong that
went into the details needed to show the cause of action. ‘Yun.)

Facts:
1. Cesar Virata is one of the defendants in the case of Republic vs Romualdez that was filed by the
PCGG against 53 individuals. The case involves the recovery of ill-gotten wealth allegedly
amassed by the defendants in that case during the Marcos years. The complaint was amended 3
times.1
2. Virata filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars asserting that these allegations are vague and
not averred with sufficient definiteness to enable him to effectively prepare his responsive
pleadings.
a. SB partially granted the motion. Only with regard to par.17 (acting as a dummy, nominee,
and/or agent) and 18 (grave abuse of authority and violation of the Constitution) was the
Republic required to file a Bill of Particulars.
b. As to the others, SB declared them to be clear and specific enough to allow Virata to file an
intelligent responsive pleading.
3. OSG submitted a Limited Bill of Particulars relating to par17 and 18. Virata filed a motion to
strike out this Limited Bill of Particulars and to defer the filing of his answer. It is alleged that
the Bill of Particulars:
a. Aver for the first time new actionable wrongs allegedly committed by him in various
official capacities; and
b. That the new allegations do not indicate that he was a dummy, nominee or agent but rather
a government officer acting in his own name.
4. Meanwhile, Virata filed a Petition for Certiorari with the SC with regard to the denial of his
Motion for a Bill of Particulars re: par.14 and §b, §g and §m. SC granted the petition.
a. OSG filed a manifestation that since PCGG is the investigating body with the complete
records of the case, PCGG is in a better position to supply the Bill of Particulars. Thus, PCGG
submitted a Bill of Particulars (no.2) in relation to par.14 and subparagraphs b,g and m.
This 2nd Bill of Particulars referred to and incorporated therein the Limited Bill of
Particulars.
5. Virata filed a comment to the 2nd Bill of Particulars with a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
a. According to him, both Bill of Particulars are pro forma and BoP no. 2 is merely a
rehash of the assertions made in the last amended complaint hence, it is not the Bill of
Particulars required by the court.
b. As to the Limited Bill of Particulars, it allegedly shows that new imputations are being
made which are different from the charge in the complaint.
c. Virata also questions the authority of PCGG and its deputized prosecutor to file the Bill of
Particulars in behalf of the Republic. He asserts that law mandates the legal representation
of the Republic by the OSG and that the SB should not have allowed the OSG to abdicate its
duty as the counsel of record for the Republic.
d. SB found the Bill of Particulars to be sufficient, hence, Certiorari (Rule 65) to the SC.

1
Par.14: “defendants...engaged in devises, schemes and strategems to unjustly enrich themselves by... (b) giving
meralco undue advantage (increasing power rates while reducing electric franchise tax); (g) justify meralco’s
anomalous acquisition of electric cooperatives; (m) manipulated the formation of Erecton Holdings for the
purpose of assuming the obligation of Erecton Inc with Philguarantee (Virata is an official of philguarantee) so
that Erecton Inc can borrow more capital its obligation with philguarantee amounting to more than P2B.”
Par.17: “acting as dummies, nominees...to conceal and prevent recovery of assets illegally obtained.”
Par.18: “Acts of defendant... constitute gross abuse of official position... to the grave and irreparable damage of
the Filipino people.”
Issues:
WON the bill of particulars should be admitted or not. NO.
WON the PCGG can deputize a counsel to prepare pleadings for the Republic. YES.

Ratio:
Virata’s Prayer: That the action against him be dismissed for violating Rule 17.3 [failure to comply with legal
orders] and that the complaint be stricken off for violating Rule 12.1(c) [failure to obey BoP].

The Bill of Particulars are couched in such general and uncertain terms as would make it
difficult for petitioner to submit an intelligent responsive pleading to the complaint and to
adequately prepare for trial.
1. The rule is that a complaint must contain the ultimate facts constituting plaintiff's cause of
action2. Even though the allegations are vague, dismissal is not the proper remedy. Thus, the
ROC provide that a party may move for more definite statement or for a BoP of any matter
which is not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to
prepare his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial. Such motion shall point out the defects
complained of and the details desired. An order directing the submission of such statement or
bill is proper where it enables the party asking for it to intelligently prepare a responsive
pleading, or adequately to prepare for trial.

2. Rules and Principles (Bill of Particulars)

It is the office of the bill of particulars to inform the opposite party and the court of the
precise nature and character of the cause of action or defense which the pleader has
attempted to set forth and thereby to guide his adversary in his preparations for trial, and
reasonably to protect him against surprise at the trial.
(a) It gives information of the specific proposition for which the pleader contends, in
respect to any material and issuable fact in the case.
(b) It becomes a part of the pleading that it supplements.
(c) It must inform the opposite party of the nature of the pleader's cause of action or defense.
(d) It must furnish the required items of the claim with reasonable fullness and precision.
(e) Generally, it will be held sufficient if it fairly and substantially gives the opposite party
the information to which he is entitled.
(f) It should be definite and specific and not contain general allegations and conclusions.
(g) It should be reasonably certain and as specific as the circumstances will allow.

3. The Court first went to dissect the Second Bill of Particulars (the one ordered by the SC to be
done)
Summary: The 2nd BoP merely reiterated the allegations set out in the complaint, which were
vague, immaterial and generalized assertions, which are inadmissible under our procedural
rules. They failed to set out with particularity the facts that were wanting in the Complaint.

(a) Par14 (b): Complaint alleges Virata’s alleged active collaboration in reducing taxes. It
stated that Virata supported PD 551 (the law that reduced the taxes) and issued its IRR.
i. SC’s concerns: Aside from the bare assertion that he supported PD 551 and issued the
IRR, the BoP is disturbingly silent as to what are the particular acts of Virata that
establish his active collaboration in the reduction of taxes. The allegation that he
supported PD 551 and issued its implementing guidelines is an insufficient
amplification of the charge because the same is but a general statement bereft of any
particulars.

2
A CAUSE OF ACTION has the following elements:
(1) A right in favor of the plaintiff;
(2) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and
(3) An act or omission on the part of such defendant violating the plaintiff’s right.
As long as the complaint contains these three elements, a cause of action exists.
 ii. Possible queries: How did Virata support PD 551? What were the specific acts indicating his support?
What were these implementing guidelines issued by him and when were they issued? In supporting PD 551
and in issuing its implementing guidelines, what law or right, if there is any, is violated by Virata?
(b) Par14(g): This alleged Prime Minister Virata’s issuance of a confidential memorandum re:
Three Year Program for the Extension of Meralco Services of Areas within the 60 Kilometer
Radius of Manila that enabled the restructuring of Meralcos foreign and local obligation. It
allegedly showed Virata’s active collaboration with Pres. Marcos.
i. SC’s concerns: It is an incomplete or floating disclosure of material facts replete with
generalizations and indefinite statements which seemingly ends to nowhere. There
are certain matters alleged that need to be clarified and filled up with details so that
Virata can intelligently and fairly contest them and raise them as cogent issues.
ii. Possible queries: a) In causing the issuance of the said memorandum, what law, duty or right, if there is
any, is violated by Virata?; b) What was the recommendation of the cabinet regarding the Three Year
Program? The Republic should have at least furnish the substantial or important features of the
recommendation; c) What were these electric cooperatives? Were these cooperatives the same as those
enumerated in paragraph 14(e) of the expanded Second Amended Complaint?[16] Why was the acquisition
of these cooperatives anomalous?; and d) What were Viratas specific acts as the head of Philguarantee
which led to the restructuring of Meralcos obligation? What was his participation in recommending the
restructuring of Meralcos obligation? What were these foreign and local obligations? How much of the
obligation was recommended for restructuring? What were the loan accommodations given in favor of
Meralco? When were they given and how much were involved in the transaction?
(c) Par14(m): This showed Viratas alleged support, assistance and collaboration in the
formation of Erectors Holding, Incorporated (EHI). It stated that Virata, as Chairman of
Philguarantee, supported and assisted the formation of EHI that took out loans from
Philguarantee without sufficient securities/collateral (reached more than P2 Billion).
i. SC’s concerns: The SC held that they are a mere recast or restatement of the charges
in the expanded Second Amended Complaint. Instead of supplying the pertinent facts
and specific matters that form the basis of the charge, it only made repetitive
allegations in the BoP that Virata supported and assisted the formation of the
corporation concerned, which is the very same charge or allegation in paragraph 14
(m), which requires specifications and unfailing certainty.

4. The Court then went to dissect the Limited Bill of Particulars.

Summary: The Limited BoP failed to supply Virata with material matters, which he needs in
order to file a responsive pleading. Further, the Limited BoP contains new matters, which are
not covered by the charges in the complaint. The complaint alleges that he was acting as a
dummy but the Limited BoP stated that he acted in his official capacity. Therefore, under the
Limited BoP he acted as agent of the government whereas in the complaint he allegedly acted
as agent of his co- defendants.

(a) First paragraph: Virata, member of the Monetary Board, approved the refinancing of the
outstanding loan obligations, a sweetheart or behest accommodation which enabled
Meralco Foundation, Inc. to acquire ownership and control of Meralco.
i. SC’s concerns: It is apparent from the foregoing allegations that the Republic did not
furnish Virata the following material matters which are indispensable for him to be
placed in such a situation wherein he can properly be informed of the charges against
him.
ii. Possible queries: a) Did Virata, who was only one of the members of the Board, act alone in approving the
Resolution? Who really approved the Resolution, Virata or the Monetary Board?; b) What were these
outstanding loan obligations of the three corporations concerned? Who were the creditors and debtors of
these loan obligations? How much were involved in the restructuring of the loan obligations? What made
the transaction a sweetheart or behest accommodation?; and c) How was the acquisition of MERALCO by
Meralco Foundation, Inc. related to the Resolution restructuring the loan obligations of the three
corporations?
(b) Second paragraph: Finance Minister Virata executed an Agreement with Meralco to buy
parcels of land, improvements, and facilities, which was so disadvantageous to the
government and most favorable to MERALCO which gained a total of P206.2 million that
enable the latter to service its foreign loan (now assumed by the government); the
agreement clearly showed the sweetheart deal and favors being given by the government.
 i. SC’s concerns: There are certain matters that lack in substantial particularity. They
are broad and definitely vague which require specifications in order that Virata can
properly define the issues and formulate his defenses. The allegation that the
agreement is a sweetheart deal is a general statement that needs further
amplification.
ii. Possible queries: a) What made the transaction disadvantageous to the government? The allegation that it
was disadvantageous is a conclusion of law that lacks factual basis. How did MERALCO gain the P206.2
million? The Republic should have provided for more specifics how was the transaction favorable to
MERALCO?; b) What were these foreign obligations of MERALCO which were assumed by the government?
Who were the creditors in these obligations? When were these obligations contracted? How much were
involved in the assumption of foreign obligations by the government?; and c) By the presence of the
provision of the contract quoted by the Republic, what made the agreement a sweetheart deal?
(c) Third paragraph: Virata approved the request of for a guarantee to cover 100% of its
proposed behest loan of US$ 33.5 Million, which at present forms part of the
government’s huge foreign debt; such act of Virata was a flagrant breach of public trust as
well as a violation of his duty to protect the financial condition and economy of the
country against, among others, abuses and corruption.
i. SC’s concerns: The foregoing paragraph contains incomplete and indefinite statement
of facts as to the details of the said loan.
ii. Possible queries: a) What was this $33.5 million proposed behest loan? What were its terms? Who was
supposed to be the grantor of this loan?; b) What were these short term loans? Who were the parties to
these transactions? When were these transacted? How was this $ 33.5 million behest loan related to the
short term loans?

As applied:
As shown by the above discussions, the two BoP were not the BoPs that fully complied with the
Rules of Court and with the orders of the Sandiganbayan and the SC. Because of such, the Court
deems it just and proper to order the dismissal of the expanded Second Amended Complaint, in
so far as the charges against Virata are concerned. This action is justified by Section 3, Rule 17 of
the Rules of Court, which provides that:
Section 3. Failure to prosecute. - If plaintiff fails to appear at the time of the trial, or to prosecute
his action for an unreasonable length of time, or to comply with these rules or any order of the
court, the action may be dismissed upon motion of the defendant or upon the courts own motion.
This dismissal shall have the effect of an adjudication upon the merits, unless otherwise
provided by court.

The OSG and PCGG can deputize others to act as prosecutor for the state
1. The action of the OSG in seeking the assistance of the PCGG is not without legal basis. The
Administrative Code of 1987, which virtually reproduces the powers and functions of the OSG
enumerated in PD 478 (The Law Defining the Powers and Functions of the OSG), provides, inter
alia, that:
(8) Deputize legal officers of government departments, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist
the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving their
respective offices, brought before the courts and exercise supervision and control over such
legal officers with respect to such cases.
(9) Call on any department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the Government for
such service assistance and cooperation as may be necessary in fulfilling its functions and
responsibilities and for this purpose enlist the services of any government official or employee
in the pursuit of his task. xxx.
2. Contrary to Viratas contention, the OSG did not abdicate his function and turn over the handling
of the instant case to the PCGG. What the OSG did was merely to call the PCGG for assistance and
authorize it to respond to the motion for a BoP. The OSG was impelled to act this way because of
the existence of the special circumstance that the PCGG, which has the complete records of the
case and being in charge of its investigation, was more knowledgeable and better informed of
the facts of the case than the OSG.

As applied.
3. The authority, therefore, of Attorney Ros to sign and submit in behalf of the Republic the BoP is
beyond dispute because 1) he was duly deputized by the PCGG in pursuance to its power to
prosecute cases of illgotten wealth, 2) the OSG empowered the PCGG to file the BoP, and 3) there
was no abdication of OSGs duty by giving the PCGG the authority to file the BoP.
4. On the other hand, the deputation of Felipe IV by the OSG to sign and file the Limited BoP is
based on Section 3 of PD 478, which provides that:
Section 3. The Solicitor General may, when necessary and after consultation with the
Government entity concerned, employ, retain, and compensate on a contractual basis, in the name
of the Government, such attorneys and experts or technical personnel as he may deem necessary
to assist him in the discharge of his duties. The compensation and expenses may be charged to the
agency or office in whose behalf the services have to be rendered.
5. The OSG is mandated by law to act as the counsel of the Government and its agencies in any
litigation and matter requiring the services of a lawyer. In providing the legal representation
for the Government, he is provided with vast array of powers, which includes the power
to retain and compensate lawyers on contractual basis, necessary to fulfill his sworn duty
with the end view of upholding the interest of the Government.
6. Thus, the Solicitor General acted within the legal bounds of its authority when it deputized
Attorney Felipe IV to file in behalf of the Republic the bill of particulars concerning the charges
stated in paragraph 17 and 18 of the expanded Second Amended Complaint.

7. AT ANY RATE, WON the lawyersignatories are duly deputized would not be decisive in the
resolution of this case considering that the two BoP filed by the Republic are mere scraps of
paper which miserably failed to amplify the charges against Virata. For the Republics failure to
comply with the courts order, the dismissal of the action against him is proper based on Section
3, Rule 17 of the Revised RoC and the relevant jurisprudence thereon. Simple justice demands
that as stated earlier, petitioner must know what the complaint is all about. The law
requires no less.
8. Although this Court is aware of the Governments laudable efforts to recover illgotten wealth
allegedly taken by the defendants, this Court, however, cannot shrink from its duty of upholding
the supremacy of the law under the aegis of justice and fairness. This Court in dismissing the
action against the petitioner has rightfully adhered in the unyielding tenet principia, non
homines the rule of law, not of men.