MAKATI STOCK EXCHANGE INC VS SEC GR NO.

L-23004 JUNE 30, 1965 BENGZON, CJ This case s a review of the resolutions of the SEC which would deny the Makati Stock Exchange Inc permission to operate a stock exchange unless it agreed not to list for trading on its board, securities already listed in Manila Stock Exchange. MSEI contends that SEC has no power to impose such and that is illegal, discriminatory and unjust. Sec 17 of Commonwealth Act 83 provides nor shall a security already listed in any securitie s exchange e listed anew in any other securities exchange Manila Stock Exchange has been operating alone for the past 25 years and presumably all available or worthwhile securities for trading in the market are already listed there. SEC only wants MSEI to deal only with other securities. (store can only sell goods not sold in other stores) SECs order would make it impossible for MSEI to operate so it resulted in a prohibition. SEC argued that it acted in the public interest because the operation of two or more exchanges affects public interest. AUTHORITY OF SEC Administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to him by statute and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. o Approved by the department head before the war o Not in conflict with the provisions of the Securities Act -The approval of the department by itself adds no weight in a judicial litigation and the test is not whether the Act forbids the commission from imposing a prohibition but whether it empowers the commission to prohibit. The power to regulate does not imply the authority to prohibit ISSUES: o Whether the establishment of another exchange in the environs of manila would be inimical to the public interest. o Whether double or multiple listings of securities should be prohibited for the protection of investors A.) Encourage monopolies as oppose to promoting a healthy competition. The price in a one on one sale would be higher due to fixed rates plus brokerage fee. B.) Protection of investors is it necessary to protect them as opposed to protecting the public from fraudulent representations or false promises. It is beneficial for public interest to have more than one stock exchange. AND the SEC has no legal authority to stifle free enterprise and individual liberty. The legislature has specified the conditions under which a stock exchange may legally obtain a permit and it is not for the commission to impose on others. If the existence of 2 or more competing exchanges jeopardizes public interest it should be the Congress that should act with the recommendation of the SEC but the operation of exchanges should not be so regulated as practically to create a monopoly by preventing the establishment of other stock exchanges and thereby contravening o MSEIs constitutional right to equality before the law o Granted civil liberty to pursue any lawful employment or trade o Investors right to choose where to buy or sell and his privilege to select the brokers in his employment. MSEIs articles of incorporation was approved therefore granting a license to operate not minding the condition given by the commission because such didnt affect them at that time. Upon learning of the prohibition they immediately contested. Accordingly, the license of the petition to operate a stock exchange is approved without such condition.

RUPERTO TAULE VS SEC. LUIS SANTOS AND GOV. LEANDRO VERCELES GR. NO. 90336 AUGUST 12, 1991 GANCAYCO, J Extend of authority of local government over katipunan ng mga barangay/barangay councils. On June 18, 1989, the Federation of Associations of Barangay Councils (FABC) of Catanduanes convened for the purpose of holding the elections of its officers. (6/11) The Board of Election Supervisors/Consultants were PGOO, Treasurer and Provincial Election Supervisor. When they decided to hold the election despite the absence of 5, PT and PES walked out. Election proceeded with PGOO Alberto Molina as presiding officer. Officers : P- Ruperto Taule VP- Allan Aquino S- Vicente Avila T-Fidel Jacob A- Leo Sales On June 19, 1989 Leandro Verceles sent a letter to Santos (sec of LG) protesting the election of the officers of FABC and seeking its nullification Pres. Taule filed then his comment denying the alleged irregularities and denouncing the said Gov. for meddling or intervening in the election of FABC officers and at the same time, requesting his appointment as a member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. August 4, 1989 Sec Santos issued a resolution nullifying the election of the officers of the FABC and ordering a new one to be conducted. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration DENIED ISSUES: o Whether respondent Sec has jurisdiction to entertain an election protest involving FABC o Whether respondent Gov has legal personality to file election protest o Whether respondent sec committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in nullifying the election LGC provides for the manner in which the katipunan ng mga barangay at all levels shall be organized. (sec 110) Respondent sec, acting in accordance with the LGC empowering him to promulgate in detail the implementing circulars and rules and reg. to carry out the various administrative actions required for the initial implementation of this code that will ensure the least disruption of ongoing programs and projects. Pet neither the constitution nor the law grants jurisdiction upon the resp. sec. over election contests involving the election of the FABC. Sec any violation of the guidelines as set forth in the circular would be a ground for filing a protest and would vest upon the department jurisdiction to resolve any protest that may be filed in relation thereto. COMELECs jurisdiction is for popular elections Sec of LG is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain any protest involving election of officers of the FABC. Unless expressly empowered, administrative agencies are bereft of quasi-judicial powers. Sec is a representative of the President as a supervisor or overseer. Respondent sec has no authority to pass upon the validity or regularity of the election of the officers of the katipunan, to allow him to do so would give him more power than the law or the constitution grants. It will give him control over local government officials for it would permit him to interfere in a purely democratic and non-partisan activity. It is the policy of the state to ensure the autonomy of local governments. SC: sec has no power to nullify election RTC has exclusive jurisdiction DLG Circular No. 89-14 cannot apply to the case because it cannot apply retroactively.

 Governor has legal standing/personality as the presiding officer of the sangguniang panlalawigan The election is declared null and void because it is the president or vice president incumbent who shall preside over the election and not the Chairman of the Board of Election Supervisors/Consultans, Molina.