Case Digest (G.R. No. 167290) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In James Ient and Maharlika Schulze vs. Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc., decided January 11, 2017, petitioners James A. Ient and Maharlika C. Schulze, officers of subsidiaries of the Tradition Group, were assigned in August 2008 to establish Tradition Financial Services Philippines, Inc., a new inter-dealer broker in competition with respondent Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc. Tradition Philippines was duly registered on September 19, 2008, naming Ient and Schulze as incorporators and directors. On October 15, 2008, Tullett Prebon filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Makati City Prosecutor, charging petitioners and former Tullett officers Jaime Villalon and Mercedes Chuidian with violations of Sections 31 and 34 in relation to Section 144 of the Corporation Code for allegedly inducing the mass resignation of Tullett’s brokering staff to join Tradition Philippines. The City Prosecutor dismissed the complaint for lack of criminal liability, holding that any inducement gave Case Digest (G.R. No. 167290) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Industry Context
- Petitioners
- James A. Ient – British national; Chief Financial Officer of Tradition Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. (Singapore)
- Maharlika C. Schulze – Filipino/German; Application Support for Tradition Financial Services Ltd. (London)
- Both are directors/incorporators of Tradition Financial Services Philippines, Inc. (Tradition Philippines), a subsidiary of the Tradition Group—a major inter-dealer broker.
- Respondent
- Tullett Prebon (Philippines), Inc. – Part of the Tullett Prebon Group; first inter-dealer broker in the Philippines since 1995; competitor of the Tradition Group.
- Establishment of Tradition Philippines
- August–September 2008 – Tradition Group tasks Ient and Schulze to establish a Philippine subsidiary (Tradition Philippines).
- September 19, 2008 – Tradition Philippines is registered with the SEC; petitioners named as directors/incorporators.
- Complaint-Affidavit and Allegations
- October 15, 2008 – Tullett’s director files a Complaint-Affidavit with the Makati City Prosecutor alleging:
- Conspiracy among petitioners and former Tullett officers (Villalon, Chuidian, Harvey) to orchestrate mass resignation of Tullett brokers.
- Inducement of Tullett clients and brokers to join Tradition Philippines.
- Violation of Sections 31 and 34 of the Corporation Code in relation to its penal Section 144.
- Petitioners and respondents Villalon/Chuidian/Harvey file counter-affidavits denying bad faith, asserting voluntary resignations, and arguing Sections 31 & 34 impose only civil liabilities.
- Investigative and Appellate Proceedings
- February 17, 2009 – Makati City Prosecutor dismisses the complaint for lack of probable cause; holds no criminal liability for inducements and Section 144 inapplicable.
- April 23 & May 15, 2009 – Secretary of Justice reverses dismissal; finds probable cause to charge petitioners and former officers with violations of Sections 31 & 34 in relation to Section 144; directs filing of Informations.
- August 12, 2009 – Court of Appeals affirms the Secretary of Justice’s resolutions, upholding probable cause and the applicability of Section 144 to Sections 31 & 34.
Issues:
- Does Section 144 of the Corporation Code impose criminal penalties on violations of Sections 31 and 34, which prescribe only civil liabilities?
- Did the Secretary of Justice commit grave abuse of discretion in reversing the prosecutor’s dismissal for lack of probable cause?
- Was certiorari the proper remedy to assail the Secretary of Justice’s resolutions on probable cause?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)