Ient vs. Tullett Prebon , Inc.

Facts:

Petitioners James A. Ient and Maharlika C. Schulze are employees/executives of entities in the Tradition Group who were involved in establishing Tradition Financial Services Philippines, Inc. (registered September 19, 2008). Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc. (Tullett) is an incumbent inter‑dealer broker in the Philippines and filed a Complaint‑Affidavit on October 15, 2008 with the Makati City Prosecutor alleging that certain former directors/officers (including Jaime Villalon and Mercedes Chuidian) conspired with petitioners and others to orchestrate the mass resignation of Tullett’s brokering staff and to induce clients and staff to move to Tradition Philippines, thereby violating Sections 31 and 34 in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code.

The respondents (Villalon, Chuidian, Harvey and petitioners Ient and Schulze) filed counter‑ and rejoinder‑affidavits asserting chiefly that resignations were voluntary, that movement of brokers is customary in the industry, and that Sections 31 and 34 prescribe civil remedies (damages, accounting, restitution) so Section 144 (a penal provision) cannot be invoked; petitioners further argued that conspiracy under the Revised Penal Code could not be suppletorily applied. The Acting City Prosecutor, Cresencio F. Delos Trinos, Jr., dismissed the complaints in a February 17, 2009 Resolution, finding no criminal offense and observing that, at most, inducement would give rise to civil liability and that Sections 31 and 34 carry civil, not criminal, consequences.

Tullett petitioned the Secretary of Justice for review. In a Resolution dated April 23, 2009, then Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez reversed the dismissal, found probable cause to indict for violation of Sections 31 and 34 in relation to Section 144, and directed filing of informations; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on May 15, 2009. Informations were filed in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City. Petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals by certiorari under Rule 65 (CA‑G.R. SP No. 109094); the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated August 12, 2009 affirmed the Secretary’s R...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is the present Rule 45 petition/certiorari review proper and not moot despite the subsequent filing of informations and the availability of other remedies?
• Should the petitions be dismissed for forum shopping because other remedies (motion to quash, judicial determination of probable cause) were pending in the trial court?
• Do Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code constitute offenses punishable under Section 144 such that criminal liability (fine or imprisonment) may be imposed?
• Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the city prosecutor’s dismissal and finding probable cause to indict petitioners ...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)