Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1993 > August 1993 Decisions > G.R. No. 55343 August 16, 1993 - A & A CONTINENTAL COMM. PHIL., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 55343. August 16, 1993.]

A & A CONTINENTAL COMMODITIES PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner, v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and ROLANDO G. AGUILA, Respondents.

Amado M. Santiago, Jr. for Petitioner.

Fornier, Lava & Fornier Law Office for respondent Rolando G. Aguila.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER; CONFERRED BY LAW AND DETERMINED BY THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT. — It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 [1968]) and is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein (Serrano v. Muñoz (Hi) Motors, Inc., 21 SCRA 1085 [1967]).

2. COMMERCIAL LAW; SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION; POSSESSES THE POWER TO SUSPEND OR REVOKE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP OR ASSOCIATION. — On the action to revoke the certificate of registration of petitioner, there is no doubt that the SEC has jurisdiction over the same. Section 6(L) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A clearly provides that the SEC shall possess the power to suspend or revoke, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or certificate of registration of corporations, partnership or associations.

3. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING COLLECTION OF SUMS OF MONEY; WHEN AVAILABLE. — The basic legal provision conferring jurisdiction upon the SEC is Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A which this Court applied in Orosa, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (193 SCRA 391 [1991]), thusly: Section 3 of Pres. Decree No. 902-A should also be read in conjunction with Section 5 of the same law, providing: "Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving: ‘a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the public and/or the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission.’" Considering that Petitioners’ Complaints sufficiently allege acts amounting to fraud and misrepresentation committed by Respondent Corporation, the SEC must be held to retain its original and exclusive jurisdiction over these five (5) cases notwithstanding the revocation by the Central Bank of Respondent Corporation’s license or permit to operate as financing company despite the fact that the suits involve collections of sums of money paid to said corporation, the recovery of which would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of regular Courts. The fraud committed is detrimental to the interest of the public and, therefore, encompasses a category of relationship within the SEC jurisdiction. "Otherwise stated, in order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following relationships: (a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (b) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; (c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves." (Union Glass & Container Corp. v. SEC, No. 64013, 28 November 1983, 126 SCRA 31, 38; Abejo v. De la Cruz, No. 63558, 19 May 1987, 149 SCRA 654).


D E C I S I O N


MELO, J.:


In the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition, petitioner A & A Continental Commodities Philippines, Inc., seeks to annul and set aside the order dated September 24, 1980, issued by respondent Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC for brevity) in SEC Case No. 1886 and to dismiss said case. The impugned order was promulgated prior to the issuance on February 27, 1991, of Circular No. 1-91 which mandates elevation of an appeal from a final order or decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Court of Appeals.

The relevant facts of the case, culled from the record, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Petitioner is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, engaged in the commodities brokerage business. On August 3, 1979, petitioner and private respondent entered into a contract for the purchase or sale of commodities (Annex A of Petitioner’s Reply, p. 287, Rollo). On January 21, 1980, private respondent bought, through petitioner, seven contracts of copper at the following prices: (a) five contracts for US$1.387 per pound and (b) two contracts for US$1.3840. The margin requirement for the seven contracts was P18,750 per contract or a total amount of P131,250.00, which amount was earmarked from private respondent’s cash deposit with petitioner of P306,326.46. On January 23, 1980, Petitioner, allegedly "without valid and justifiable cause, maliciously, arbitrarily, wantonly, fraudulently, and recklessly" (p. 37, Rollo), ordered private respondent to increase his margin requirements per contract from P18,750 to P75,000 and gave private respondent up to 5 P.M. of the same day within which to deposit with petitioner the amount of P344,771.05. Private respondent requested additional time within which to raise the amount, but petitioner informed him that it would immediately sell his seven copper contracts should he fail to deposit the additional amount by 5 P.M. that same day. Private respondent then requested that should petitioner proceed with the sale, the same be not effected immediately upon the opening of trading if prices were low but at a later time. However, petitioner did not accede to the request and sold five contracts for $1.2150 a pound immediately upon the opening of trading on January 24, 1980 and the other two at $1.25 a pound at a latter time.

Claiming that he had incurred a loss of P199,646.68 due to the premature sale of the copper contracts and that he would have made a profit of P100,000 had the sale been made at a later date, private respondent filed with the SEC on March 19, 1980 a complaint later docketed as SEC Case No. 1886, praying that judgment be rendered:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Revoking the certificate of registration of respondent A & A with this Honorable Commission.

2. Ordering respondent to pay petitioner [now private respondent Aguila] the sum of P299,646.68, plus such interests and other charges as petitioner Aguila may prove in the course of trial.

3. Ordering respondent A & A [now herein petitioner] to pay the amount of P1,000,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.

4. Ordering respondent A & A to pay attorney’s fees in the amount of P100,000.00, expenses of litigation, and costs of suit. (p. 42, Rollo).

On April 28, 1980, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss SEC Case No. 1886 principally on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the SEC. The motion was, however, denied in an Order dated September 24, 1980.

Hence, the instant petition where the only issue necessarily is whether or not the SEC has jurisdiction over SEC Case No. 1886.

Before proceeding to resolve said issue, we have to resolve initially private respondent’s motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel. Private respondent asserts that before the filing of SEC Case No. 1886 the law firm of Santiago, Fornier, Tinga & Associates handled this case as shown by the demand letter dated January 26, 1980 (Annex A of private respondent’s Comment, pp. 182-183, Rollo) sent to petitioner wherein Atty. Andresito X. Fornier of the law firm Santiago, Fornier, Tinga & Associates on behalf of private respondent, informed petitioner that private respondent was not confirming the sale of the seven copper contracts and wherein it was further demanded that petitioner should credit to private respondent the amount of P111,628.55 or his margin deposit. Petitioner, in its opposition to said motion, states that Atty. Andresito X. Fornier withdrew from the law firm of Santiago, Fornier, Tinga and Associates effective January 12, 1980, as evidenced by the minutes of the meeting of January 12, 1980 (Annex D of Petitioner’s Reply, p. 296, Rollo). Considering that Atty. Andresito Fornier was no longer a member of the law firm Santiago, Fornier, Tinga & Associates even before the incidents of the case at bar transpired, as in fact said law firm was already inexistent at the time the letter of January 26, 1980 was written, private respondent’s motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel should be denied.

We come now to the main issue: the jurisdiction of the SEC over the case.

Poring over the complaint filed by private respondent, we find that the complaint is praying for two reliefs based on the same set of facts. One is for the revocation of the certificate of registration of petitioner; the other is for a sum of money.

On the action to revoke the certificate of registration of petitioner, there is no doubt that the SEC has jurisdiction over the same. Section 6(L) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A clearly provides that the SEC shall possess the power to suspend or revoke, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or certificate of registration of corporations, partnerships or associations.

On the other aspect of the SEC’s jurisdiction over the action for a sum of money, we likewise rule that the Commission has the legal competence to decide said issue.

It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is conferred by law (Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 [1968]) and is determined by the allegations of the complaint, irrespective of whether or not the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein (Serrano v. Munoz (Hi) Motors, Inc., 21 SCRA 1085 [1967]).

The basic legal provision conferring jurisdiction upon the SEC is Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A which this Court applied in Orosa, Jr. v. Court of Appeals (193 SCRA 391 [1991]), thusly:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Section 3 of Pres. Decree No. 902-A should also be read in conjunction with Section 5 of the same law, providing:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘a) Devices or schemes employed by or any acts of the board of directors, business associates, its officers or partners, amounting to fraud and misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the public and/or the stockholders, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the Commission.’" (Emphasis ours).

Considering that Petitioners’ Complaints sufficiently allege acts amounting to fraud and misrepresentation committed by Respondent Corporation, the SEC must be held to retain its original and exclusive jurisdiction over these five (5) cases notwithstanding the revocation by the Central Bank of Respondent Corporation’s license or permit to operate as a financing company and despite the fact that the suits involve collections of sums of money paid to said corporation, the recovery of which would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of regular Courts. The fraud committed is detrimental to the interest of the public and, therefore, encompasses a category of relationship within the SEC jurisdiction.

"Otherwise stated, in order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following relationships: (a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; (b) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; (c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves." (Union Glass & Container Corp. v. SEC, No. 64013, 28 November 1983, 126 SCRA 31, 38; Abejo v. De la Cruz, No. 63558, 19 May 1987, 149 SCRA 654).(at pp. 396-397.)

The above-quoted ruling was reiterated in the case of Magalad v. Premiere Financing Corporation (209 SCRA 260 [1992]), to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Considering that Magalad’s complaint sufficiently alleges acts amounting to fraud and misrepresentation committed by Premiere, the SEC must be held to retain its original and exclusive jurisdiction over the case, despite the fact that the suit involves collection of sums of money paid to said corporation, the recovery of which would ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of regular courts. The fraud committed is detrimental to the interest of the public and, therefore, encompasses a category of relationship within the SEC jurisdiction.(at p. 264.)

As earlier alluded to, the complaint filed before the SEC, insofar as herein pertinent, alleged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

5. On January 23, 1980 respondent A & A, without valid and justifiable cause, arbitrarily, maliciously, wantonly, fraudulently, and recklessly ordered petitioner to increase its margin requirement per contract.

Withal, the complaint alleged fraud on the part of petitioner which supposedly resulted in monetary losses to private respondent, for which reason the conclusion, on the basis of the Orosa and Magalad cases, is that the SEC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over SEC Case No. 1886.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The temporary restraining order issued on October 29, 1980, is hereby DISSOLVED.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, Bidin, Romero and Vitug, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1993 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86939 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTOS DUCAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96988 August 2, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO BALAJADIA

  • G.R. No. 80645 August 3, 1993 - MARCELINO GALANG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89112 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES M. LIWAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102725 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISMAEL N. RELORCASA

  • G.R. No. 103233 August 3, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMO PELIGRO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-89-383 August 4, 1993 - ANTONIO G. MIRANO v. MARILYN O. SAAVEDRA

  • G.R. Nos. 74294-96 August 4, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER LLABRES

  • G.R. No. 104513 August 4, 1993 - SILAHIS INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106837 August 4, 1993 - HENRY MACION, ET AL. v. JAPAL M. GUIANI, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-898 August 5, 1993 - EVANGELINE L. DINAPOL v. ISMAEL O. BALDADO

  • G.R. No. 85041 August 5, 1993 - GRACIANO BERNAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 88475-96 August 5, 1993 - CRESENCIA L. TAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95145 August 5, 1993 - GUALBERTO R. ESTIVA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 98007-08 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NECEMIO JOAQUIN

  • G.R. No. 103303 August 5, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO E. GASPER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105138 August 5, 1993 - BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-90-414 August 9, 1993 - BELEN P. FERRIOLS v. NORMA HIAM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-530 August 9, 1993 - TRINIDAD SUNGLAO VDA. DE CORONEL v. CONRADO T. DANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94549 August 9, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY SUETA

  • G.R. No. 102657 August 9, 1993 - FELICIANO NITO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93029 August 10, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILLAMOR ACZON

  • G.R. No. 94093 August 10, 1993 - FAR EAST MARBLE (PHILS.), INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102411 August 10, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97873 August 12, 1993 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103302 August 12, 1993 - NATALIA REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104226 August 12, 1993 - CONCHITA ROMUALDEZ-YAP v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85985 August 13, 1993 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. (PAL) v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90795-96 & 91125-26 August 13, 1993 - SHOEMART, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101583 August 13, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO TIDONG

  • G.R. No. 55343 August 16, 1993 - A & A CONTINENTAL COMM. PHIL., INC. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94644 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL M. ALEJANDRO

  • G.R. No. 98468 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103299 August 17, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE VIENTE

  • G.R. No. 106164 August 17, 1993 - EDWIN V. SARDEA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90626 August 18, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO ALCORIZA LASCUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94955 August 18, 1993 - JUAN CORONADO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109293 August 18, 1993 - HOME INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98472 August 19, 1993 - PHIL. ASS. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS, INC., ET AL. v. RUBEN D. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103059 August 19, 1993 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106953 August 19, 1993 - CESAR SAN JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74449 August 20, 1993 - IMELDA A. NAKPIL v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96306 August 20, 1993 - LORENZO BERICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103072 August 20, 1993 - MOBIL OIL PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103295 August 20, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO SALAMAT

  • G.R. No. 104216 August 20, 1993 - TEODORO B. PANGILINAN v. GUILLERMO T. MAGLAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105083 August 20, 1993 - VIRGILIO CALLANTA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75038 August 23, 1993 - ELIAS VILLUGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85817 August 23, 1993 - PILAR DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108232 August 23, 1993 - ZONSAYDA L. ALINSUG v. RTC, Br. 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occ., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85073 August 24, 1993 - DAVAO FRUITS CORP. v. ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96541 August 24, 1993 - DEAN JOSE JOYA, ET AL. v. PRESIDENTIAL COMM. ON GOOD GOVT., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102973 August 24, 1993 - ROGELIO CARAMOL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103393 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO MANZANO

  • G.R. No. 103403 August 24, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ULILI

  • G.R. No. 104615 August 24, 1993 - EMILIANA MEDINA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108229 August 24, 1993 - DASMARIÑAS GARMENTS, INC. v. RUBEN T. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99299 August 26, 1993 - ROBERTO ULANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100592 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR ARMADA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 104995 August 26, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR DE LEON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107324 August 26, 1993 - APOLINARIO ESBER, ET AL. v. PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91889 August 27, 1993 - MANUEL R. DULAY ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 August 30, 1993 - PATRICIO T. JUNIO v. PEDRO C. RIVERA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97226 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BETHOVEN LIZADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98443 August 30, 1993 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO NAPARAN, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 103446-47 August 30, 1993 - MARIANO F. OCAMPO, IV v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105214 August 30, 1993 - FRANCISCO JAVIER O. CARAM, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105141 August 31, 1993 - SIGNETICS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106915 August 31, 1993 - JARDINE DAVIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.