[G.R. No. 143730. April 17, 2001]

IMELDA MARCOS petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN respondents, et al.

THIRD DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 17 2001.

G.R. No. 143730 (Imelda R. Marcos, petitioner vs. Estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco, Imelda O. Conjuangco, Prime Holdings, Inc., The Sandiganbayan, respondents.)

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to annul and set aside the following orders of the Sandiganbayan in Civil Case No. 0002, “Republic of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al.”, to wit: (a) order dated 22 February 2000 dismissing Mrs. Imelda Marcos’ cross-claim and (b) order dated 23 May 2000 denying her motion for reconsideration.

The records show that on April 23, 1990, the Republic of the Philippines filed with the Sandiganbayan a Third Amended Complaint in Civil Case No. 0002 for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, impleading as defendants, among others, Imelda Marcos, the Estate of Ramon Cojuangco, Imelda Cojuangco and Prime Holdings, Inc.

On January 25, 1999, Imelda Marcos filed her amended answer with counterclaim and cross-claim. Prior thereto, she filed a motion for leave to file such pleading.

On April 13, 1999, the Sandiganbayan issued its Resolution denying her motion “with the qualification that said movant defendant, through counsel, is hereby authorized to file and serve a separate pleading containing exclusively her cross-claim against the Estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco, Imelda O. Cojuangco, and Prime Holdings, Inc., within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution.”

On April 13, 1999, the Cojuangcos, et al. filed a motion for partial reconsideration of that part of the Resolution granting Mrs. Marcos’ authority to file a separate cross-claim. For her part, Mrs. Marcos filed on April 29, 1999 a partial motion for reconsideration of the Resolution requiring her to pay docket fees for her cross-claim. On the same date, she filed her cross-claim.

On February 22, 2000, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed Resolution, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, upon the foregoing premises, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by Mrs. Marcos is hereby DENIED; the Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Cojuangcos, et al. is GRANTED and the Cross-claim DISMISSED, ‘for being barred’ and for failure to state a cause of action.”

On March 17, 2000, Mrs. Marcos filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by the Cojuangcos, et al. On May 23, 2000, the Sandiganbayan issued the second questioned Resolution, the dispositive portion stating:

“We hold that the cross-claim was properly dismissed for the reason stated in Our earlier Resolution. The Motion for Reconsideration of Mrs. Marcos is accordingly denied.”

On July 13, 2000, Mrs. Marcos filed this petition assailing the said orders. On August 30, 2000, private respondents Estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco, Imelda O. Cojuangco and Prime Holdings, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the petition.

Meantime, on July 10, 2000, private respondents filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion for severance/separate trial of the issue concerning the ownership of the shares of stocks in the PLDT. In its Resolution of September 7, 2000, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion.

Forthwith, Mrs. Marcos filed with this Court an urgent motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from conducting a separate trial.

On 28 March 2001, Mrs. Marcos, through counsel, filed the instant Motion to Withdraw Petition on the following ground:

“GROUND

THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN HAS ORDERED THE HOLDING OF A SEPARATE TRIAL RELATIVE TO THE DISPUTED PLDT SHARES THUS MAKING THE INSTANT CASE MOOT AND ACADEMIC.”

According to movant, her cross-claim will afford her the procedural avenue with which to assert her right to certain shares in the PLDT.

Indeed, since the Sandiganbayan has ordered a separate trial to determine the issue pertaining to the PLDT shares, the instant petition has become moot and academic.

WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the petition is deemed WITHDRAWN and DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON

Clerk of Court