• Danding seeks dismissal of 28-year-old case vs him


    Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. asked the Sandiganbayan’s Second Division to throw out a civil case filed against him by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), citing his right to a speedy disposition of a case.

    Cojuangco was charged,  along with late former President Ferdinand Marcos and his wife Imelda and several others, in connection with alleged behest loans and deals during Marcos’ presidency. The case is docketed as Civil Case No. 0033-H.

    “In accord with his right to a speedy disposition of a case, a defendant is entitled to the termination of the constant, persistent, debilitating strain, distress and waste of valuable time caused by a protracted litigation when the plaintiff, as shown by his failure to prosecute the case for an unreasonable length of time, is no longer interested in pursuing the action,” he said in a 23-page Motion to Dismiss dated May 4, 2015.

    “The instant case has been pending for almost 28 years since the original complaint in Civil Case No. 0033 was instituted, and more than 20 years from the filing of the ‘Third Amended Complaint (Subdivided) [Re: Behest Loans and Contracts],’ dated February 27, 1995, without having commenced trial despite every opportunity therefor,” Cojuangco added.

    The original complaint was filed before the Sandiganbayan in 1987, naming him and 59 individuals as defendants, and was amended thrice over the years.

    Later, the case was subdivided into eight complaints docketed as Civil Case Nos. 0033-A to 0033-H.

    In May 1991, Cojuangco filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the anti-graft court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the subdivided complaint and that the complainant has no cause of action against him.

    He filed a motion in 2005, which sought resolution of the motion to dismiss and which the court noted.

    In 2009, the prosecution asked the court to resolve pending incidents in the case, which was also noted.

    The court eventually denied Cojuangco’s motion to dismiss in June 2013 “for want of merit.”


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.

    Comments are closed.