REPUBLIC VS. CABRINI, GREEN, & ROSS, INC. G.R. NO. 154522

Republic vs. Cabrini, Green, & Ross, Inc.

G.R. NO. 154522

DATE: May 05, 2006

PONENTE: Corona, J.

FACTS: In the exercise of its power under Section 10 of RA 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) issued freeze orders against various bank accounts of respondents. The frozen bank accounts were previously found prima facie to be related to the unlawful activities of respondents.

Under RA 9160, a freeze order issued by the AMLC is effective for a period not exceeding 15 days unless extended “upon order of the court.” Accordingly, before the lapse of the period of effectivity of its freeze orders, the AMLC2 filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) various petitions for extension of effectivity of its freeze orders.

The AMLC invoked the jurisdiction of the CA in the belief that the power given to the CA to issue a TRO or writ of injunction against any freeze order issued by the AMLC carried with it the power to extend the effectivity of a freeze order. In other words, the AMLC interpreted the phrase “upon order of the court” to refer to the CA.

However, the CA disagreed with the AMLC and dismissed the petitions.

ISSUE/S: Which court has jurisdiction to extend the effectivity of a freeze order?

RULING: Court of Appeals.

During the pendency of these petitions, or on March 3, 2003, Congress enacted RA 9194 (An Act Amending Republic Act No. 9160, Otherwise Known as the “Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001”).6 It amended Section 10 of RA 9160

as follows:

SEC. 7. Section 10 of [RA 9160] is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property.—The Court of Appeals, upon application ex parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Sec. 3(i) hereof, may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days unless extended by the court.”(emphasis supplied)

Section 12 of RA 9194 further provides:

SEC. 12. Transitory Provision.—Existing freeze orders issued by the AMLC shall remain in force for a period of thirty (30) days after theeffectivity of this Act, unless extended by the Court of Appeals.

(emphasis supplied)

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a “Very Urgent Motion to Remand Cases to the Honorable

Court of Appeals. The OSG prayed for the remand of these cases to the CA pursuant to RA 9194.

The amendment by RA 9194 of RA 9160 erased any doubt on the jurisdiction of the CA over the extension of freeze orders. As the law now stands, it is solely the CA which has the authority to issue a freeze order as well as to extend its effectivity. It also has the exclusive jurisdiction to extend existing freeze orders previously issued by the AMLC vis-à- vis accounts and deposits related to money-laundering activities.