PRIME Holdings Inc. and the estate of Ramon U. Cojuangco and Imelda O. Cojuangco continue their legal efforts to hold on to the accrued dividends on the 111,415 shares of the Philippine Telecommunications Investments Corp. (PTIC) in the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) earlier forfeited in favor of the state for being part of the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family.

They have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to set aside its April 2009 decision that affirmed the resolutions of the Sandiganbayan on the forfeiture. Also in April, the Court of Appeals denied a petition for certiorari filed by Prime Holdings Inc. and the Cojuangcos seeking to nullify the Sandigan­bayan resolutions.

In their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners insisted the accrued dividends and interests of the PTIC shares are not covered by the SC’s final ruling in 2006 ordering the reconveyance of the shares to the state.

“The dispositive portion of the [2006] decision clearly states that the reconveyance only covers the 111,415 PTIC shares. Accordingly, nothing more is to be read into said dispositive portion, so as to allow inclusion in the writ of execution of dividends and interests not covered in the decision,” argued the petitioners.

In upholding the resolutions of the antigraft court issued on November 27 and June 13, 2008, the High Tribunal declared that although it did not categorically state in the dispositive portion of its 2006 final decision, it was clear from the body of the decision that what was awarded in favor of the State was “the whole block of shares and the fruits thereof.”

The petitioners said the Court’s decision sets “a dangerous precedent” of trying to correct an error in a final and executory decision maintaining that once a decision is final, the Court can no longer modify it unless there are clerical errors or when the judgment is void.

“Public policy therefore demands of the Honorable Court to uphold the doctrine of finality of judgments, conformably with established jurisprudence, and strike down the assailed resolutions of the Sandiganbayan, which are void for varying the tenor of the [2006] decision and for exceeding its terms,” said the petitioners.

They further argued that the government cannot be considered a “crippled owner” for being deprived of the dividends and interests of the PTIC shares, noting that the government “enjoyed full benefits of the ownership” of the PTIC shares when it sold the said shares to Metro Pacific in the amount of P25.2 billion.

As a consequence, they added, the government abandoned its rights to the dividends.

But the SC said that dividends are payable to the stockholders of record as of the date of the declaration of dividends, and a transfer of shares which is not recorded in the books of corporations is valid only as between the parties.

Thus, the High Tribunal added, the transferor has the right to dividends as against the corporation without notice of transfer, but it serves as trustee of the real owner of the dividends subject to the contract between the transferor and transferee as to who is entitled to receive the dividends.