Case Digest (G.R. No. L-52129)
Facts:
John Gokongwei, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, San Miguel Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 52129, April 21, 1980, the Supreme Court En Banc, Antonio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner John Gokongwei, Jr. sought review of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) en banc resolution dated May 7, 1979 in SEC Case No. 1375, which sustained the San Miguel Corporation (SMC) Board of Directors' finding that petitioner was engaged in a business "competitive with or antagonistic to" SMC and therefore ineligible for election as director under Section 3, Article III of the amended SMC by‑laws. Petitioner asked the Court to nullify and set aside the SEC en banc resolution. He contended, inter alia, that the SEC should not have acted while his motion for reconsideration with this Court was pending; that private respondents were barred by the rule of pari delicto from disqualifying him; and that the SMC Board's resolution was an over‑exertion of corporate power intended to perpetuate incumbents.
The Court noted antecedent proceedings. Earlier litigation (L‑45911) involved petitioner’s challenge to the validity of the same amended by‑laws; that earlier action resulted in a dismissal without a decisive vote but with guidance that the question of petitioner’s actual disqualification should be determined after a new hearing by the SMC Board, appealable to the SEC en banc and ultimately to the Supreme Court. After the SMC Board declared petitioner disqualified, the SEC en banc sustained that determination. The SEC’s resolution was based principally on affidavits (Nazario Avendano, Ruperto Sarandi, Jr., Fernando Constantino, Jose Picornell and Mabini Antonio) and documentary evidence showing petitioner’s engagement in agricultural and poultry businesses competitive with SMC; petitioner presented no evidence to rebut those proofs.
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review, dismissing it for lack of merit. The Court invoked the "law of the case" rationale as to the enforceability of the amended by‑laws insofar as the parties were concerned, and applied the settled rule that factual findings of administrative agencies will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence (citing Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307 (1972)). The decision was concurred in by Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Abad Santos and De Castro; Chief Justice Ferna...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the SEC could validly entertain and sustain the SMC Board's disqualification of petitioner while a motion for reconsideration in a related Supreme Court action was pending (i.e., whether the "law of the case" doctrine or the pendency of petitioner’s motion prevented SEC action).
- Whether private respondents (SMC and its Board) were precluded from disqualifying petitioner by the rule of pari delicto or similar equitable defenses.
- Whether the SMC Board's resolution disqualifying petitioner was an over‑exertion of corporate power (oppressive, arbitrary, or designed to perpetuate incumbents).
- Whether the SEC’s decision sustaining disqualification was supporte...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)