Access over 20 million homework & study documents

Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,

Content type
User Generated
Type
Study Guide
Rating
Showing Page:
1/15
Union Bank vs CA
Facts:
Private respondents are controlling stockholders of the EYCO Corporations, jointly
filed with the SEC a Petition for the Declaration of Suspension of Payment[s],
Formation and Appointment of Rehabilitation Receiver/Committee, Approval of
Rehabilitation Plan with Alternative Prayer for Liquidation and Dissolution of
Corporations .
Upon finding the above petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the SEC
Hearing directed the suspension of all actions, claims and proceedings against
private respondents pending before any court, tribunal, office, board and/or
commission. The creditors of the respondents, convened including herein
petitioners, for the purpose of deciding their options in the event that private
respondents invoke the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended.
An agreement was signed between the creditors. However, without notifying the
members of the consortium, petitioner, however, decided to break away from the
group by suing private respondents in the regular courts.
Aside from commencing suits in the regular courts, petitioner also opposed private
respondents’ petition for suspension of payments in the SEC by filing a Motion to
Dismiss. It contended that the SEC has no jurisdiction over such petition on the
ground that the inclusion of the Yutingcos in the petition “cannot be allowed since
the authority and power of the Commission under the virtue of law applies only
to corporations, partnership[s] and other forms of associations, and not to
individual petitioners who are not clearly covered by P.D. 902-A as
amended”. According to petitioner, what should have been applied instead was the
provision on suspension of payments under the “Insolvency Law,” which mandated
the filing of the petition in the Regional Trial Court and not in the SEC. Finally,
petitioner disputed private respondents’ recourse to suspension of payments
alleging that the latter prejudiced their creditors by fraudulently disposing of
corporate properties within the 30-day period prior to the filing of such petition.
SEC issued an order to create a MANCOM which would handle the interest of
creditors. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss against the SEC. It imputed grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the SEC Hearing Panel in precipitately issuing the
suspension order and in prematurely directing the creation of the Mancom.
Petitioner lamented that these actions of the panel deprived it of due process by
effectively rendering moot and academic its Motion to Dismiss which allegedly
presented a prejudicial question to the propriety of creating a Mancom.
The Court of Appeals First Division finally rendered its assailed decision, granting
intervention of the seven (7) creditor banks while dismissing the petition for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies and forum-shopping. Nothing in the said
decision, however, indicates that the appellate court squarely confronted the issue
of jurisdiction raised earlier by petitioner.
Issues:
1. Whether the SEC can validly acquire jurisdiction over a petition for
suspension of payments
2. WON petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies in taking direct
recourse to the Court of Appeals
Ruling;
1. SC ruled that SEC’s jurisdiction on matters of suspension of payments is
confined only to those initiated by corporations, partnerships or
associations. The Court, however, does not subscribe to the theory
espoused by petitioner that the case filed by private respondents should
be dismissed outright in its entirety. The reason is that while it is true that
the SEC cannot acquire jurisdiction over an individual filing a petition for
suspension of payments together with a corporate entity, a closer scrutiny
of Chung Ka Bio and MPPI does not in any manner suggest, even
tangentially, that a petition as the one at bar must be dismissed likewise
with respect to the corporate co-petitioner. The result, therefore, is that
the petition with respect to EYCO shall subsist and may be validly acted
upon by the SEC. The Yutingcos, on the other hand, shall be dropped from
the petition and be required to pursue their remedies in the regular courts
of competent jurisdiction
2. Equally weak is petitioner’s challenge on the Court of Appeals’ decision
dismissing its petition for certiorari for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. Its complaint that the SEC Hearing Panel was acting without
jurisdiction in conducting proceedings relative to private respondents’
petition and for rendering moot and academic its Motion to Dismiss does
not justify the procedural “short-cut” it took to the appellate court. In this
case, petitioner was actually not without remedy to correct what it
perceived and supposed was an erroneous assumption of jurisdiction by
the SEC without having recourse immediately to the Court of Appeals.
However, they did not appeal to SEC, but rather directed themselves to the
CA.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/15
Painaga vs. Cortes
Facts:
Petitioner purchased from Bonifacio Merendad a parcel of corn and pasture land
with improvements thereon situated at Antique in 1962 with an area of 60,000
square meters more or less. He has since then been in possession thereof.
Private respondent, claiming that the northern portion of said parcel of land is
included in his OCT, caused a technical survey of said portion over the vehement
opposition and objection of petitioner. Petitioner thereafter filed with the District
Officer, Bureau of Lands, San Jose, Antique a protest under oath, praying that the
original certificate of title issued in private respondent's favor be annulled on the
ground of fraud. An investigation was forthwith commenced by the District Land
Officer.
Petitioner filed in the CFI of Capiz, an action for Injunction with Preliminary
Prohibitory Injunction with Damages against respondents. He alleged in the main
that since he filed the protest with the District Land Office, private respondent,
personally and with the aid of his agents who are notorious in the community for
their violent temper, had for several times attempted and were still attempting to
oust him from the area in controversy by means of force, violence and intimidation.
He therefore prayed that a writ of preliminary prohibitive injunction be issued
against private respondent as defendant therein and his agents; that said injunctive
writ be made permanent after trial and that private respondents be adjudged liable
to him for actual and moral damages and expenses of litigation.
RTC dismissed the case due to prematurity. The petitioner admitted that he had
filed a protest with the Bureau of Lands, which protest was still pending
investigation, petitioner had "no cause of action for filing a complaint in court
unless the administrative remedies provided by law shall have been exhausted."
Issue:
What is the proper application of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies?
Ruling:
Petition granted.
Whatever decision the trial court may render in Civil Case No. 1539 will not
encroach on the primary jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands over the question of
who between petitioner and private respondent is entitled to the ownership of the
land in question. Thus, the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies does
not find application in the case at bar.
The order dated January 22, 1979 is annulled and set aside. Civil Case No. 1539 of
the former Court of First Instance of Antique is reinstated. The successor Regional
Trial Court is directed to proceed with the disposition of the case with deliberate
dispatch.

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/15

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 15 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Union Bank vs CA Facts: Private respondents  are controlling stockholders of the EYCO Corporations, jointly filed with the SEC a Petition for the Declaration of Suspension of Payment[s], Formation and Appointment of Rehabilitation Receiver/Committee, Approval of Rehabilitation Plan with Alternative Prayer for Liquidation and Dissolution of Corporations . Upon finding the above petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the SEC Hearing directed the suspension of all actions, claims and proceedings against private respondents pending before any court, tribunal, office, board and/or commission. The creditors of the respondents, convened including herein petitioners, for the purpose of deciding their options in the event that private respondents invoke the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended. An agreement was signed between the creditors. However, without notifying the members of the consortium, petitioner, however, decided to break away from the group by suing private respondents in the regular courts. Aside from commencing suits in the regular courts, petitioner also opposed private respondents’ petition for suspension of payments in the SEC by filing a Motion to Dismiss. It contended that the SEC has no jurisdiction over such petition on the ground that the inclusion of the Yutingcos in the petition “cannot be allowed since the authority and power of the Commission under the virtue of law applies only to corporations, partnership[s] and ot ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Anonymous
Just what I was looking for! Super helpful.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4