FACTS:
The PCGG sequestered shares and stocks of Benguet Corp. which the registered owners are the petitioners on or about April 5, 1986. It did so apparently on the strength of evidence that the ostensible owners herein of petitioners corporation, is a known crony of Ferdinand Marcos. Now Benguet Management Corporation ( hereafter simply Benguet Corp. ), wished to acquire the shares of stocks from the petitioners. A contract was executed by the parties which provided among other things, if the agreements made were not done within 60 days, Benguet Corp. has the option either to withdraw from the contract, or pay interest as provided in the agreement. Approval by the PCGG was not immediately give but eventually however PCGG gave its approval. The petitioners protested, in their view, the contract had already been rescinded, and they have been freed from their commitments thereunder. The petitioners contend that the PCGG had acted without or in excess of its authority or jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion when it approved the carrying out of the contract to purchase and sell.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the PCGG acted with grave abuse and discretion.
HELD:
The Supreme Court had sustained the constitutionality of the grant to the PCGG the power to sequester properties alleged to be “ill-gotten”, amassed by the leaders and supporters of the previous regime, and the power to possess assets and provisionally take over business enterprises.
The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that respondent PCGG has acted without or in excess of the authority granted them by law, or with grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, it would appear that its acts were motivated and guided by law creating it and prescribing its powers, functions, duties, responsibilities.
