Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
EYCO
the
properties mortgaged to it by
the
FIRST DIVISION
- versus -
despite
recommendation
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
This
petition
certiorari
for
review
under Rule
on
45 assails
petition
for
payments
before
Exchange
suspension
and
the
of
rehabilitation
Securities
Commission
and
(SEC),
expenses
during
Court
of
the
mortgaged
properties
was
Claiming
that
the
foreclosure
1999,
its
for
the
SEC
rendered
suspension
of
payments,
EYCOs
proposed
the
terminating
case
petitioning
was
corporation. The
remanded
panel
for
to
the
liquidation
appeal
by
dismissed
under
joint
manifestation
and
resolution
had
the
Trial
proceedings.[5] On
On September 16, 1997, the EYCO
Regional
hearing
64166.
of
Court,
Sometime
in
November
2000
hearing,
the
Opposition,[11] plaintif
foreclosure
by
petitioner,
in
the
of
assailed orders.
the 1997
Rules
of
Civil
trial
court
in
issuing
the
action.
court
to
reconsideration
denied
the
motion
was
denied.[13] Petitioner
likewise
challenged
Jurisdiction
is
defined
as
the
trial
(TRO). Petitioner
court
After
filed
hear
courts jurisdiction
dismiss. It
questions
same,
be
RTC,
SEC
held
must
cognizable
that
necessarily
by
notwithstanding
the
that
the
and
decide
case.[14] A
over
determined
which
as
of
provided
has
in
jurisdiction
Sec.
(a)
whether
the
the
it
by
or
material
for,
not
the
complainant/plaintif is entitled to
jurisdiction
of
injunction,
SEC
the
being
action
matter
determines
prohibitory
or
issue
preliminary
or
the
to
cases
and
the
Section
Pambansa
exclusive
following:
mortgaged
complaint
to
petitioner. The
principally
seeks
to
on
the
ground
and
jurisdiction
placed
of
under
the
the
appointed
Liquidator in SEC Case No. 09-975764. Thus, Civil Case No. 349-V00 is
damages
19
lie
of Batas
within
of
the
defendant,
compulsion
to
continue
part
or
an
incident
of
an
in
which
jurisdiction
it
are
has
the
payments
or
rehabilitation
of
the
findings
and
of
the
recommendation
best
interest
stockholders,
of
the
parties-litigants,
the
liquidation
remaining
assets
of
its
appointing
properties
are
then
any
lien
or
implementation
of
the
liquidation plan.[21]
to
trial
jurisdiction
the
courts
over
appropriate
the
those
SECs
cases
The
SEC
assumed
jurisdiction over CMCs
petition for suspension of
payment and issued a
suspension order on 2
April 1996 after it found
CMCs petition to be
sufficient in form and
substance. While
CMCs
petition was still pending
with the SEC as of 30 June
2000,
it
was
finally
disposed
of
on
29
November 2000 when the
SEC issued its Omnibus
Order
directing
the
dissolution of CMC and
the
transfer
of
the
liquidation
proceedings
before the appropriate
trial
court. The
SEC
finally
disposed
of
CMCs
petition
for
suspension of payment
when it determined
that CMC could no
longer be successfully
rehabilitated.
However,
the
SECs
jurisdiction
does
not
extend to the liquidation
of a corporation. While
the
SEC
has
jurisdiction to order
the dissolution of a
corporation,
jurisdiction over the
liquidation
of
the
corporation
now
pertains
to
the
appropriate
regional
trial courts. This is the
reason why the SEC, in its
29
November
2000
Omnibus Order, directed
that the proceedings on
and implementation of
the order of liquidation be
commenced
at
the
Regional Trial Court to
which this case shall be
transferred. This is the
correct
procedure
because the liquidation of
a corporation requires the
settlement of claims for
and
against
the
corporation, which clearly
falls under the jurisdiction
of the regular courts. The
trial court is in the best
position to convene all the
creditors
of
the
corporation,
ascertain
their
claims,
and
determine
their
preferences.[23] (Emphasis
supplied.)
by
been
transferred
to
the
of
Sherifs
jurisdiction
over
the
of
Valenzuela
its
97-5764,
bound
injunction
conditions
City
on
case
respondent. No
filed
to
by
reversible
the
error
petitioner
by
the
was
not
terms
and
of
the
Agreement relative
to
the
properties
and/or
mortgagors.
respondents
complaint
belonging
other
to
EYCO
accommodation
for
WHEREFORE, the
petition for review on certiorari
Sale,
petitioner. Pursuant
Lastly,
mentioned
it
that
may
be
while
the
is DENIED. The
September
Decision
dated
2002
and
27,
the
execution
of
the
With
costs
against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
the