Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8987)
Facts:
Japanese War Notes Claimants Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. L-8987. May 23, 1957, Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Japanese War Notes Claimants Association of the Philippines, Inc. and its president were served with an order by a Securities and Exchange Commissioner dated August 25, 1954, to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for making misrepresentations to the public concerning the need to register and deposit Japanese war notes for their alleged impending redemption under proposed legislation (Senate Bill No. 163 and Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 14). An investigation followed the show-cause order.
At the investigation petitioner maintained it had made no misrepresentations and that any mistaken statements (for example, that President Magsaysay would secure redemption representations from the United States) were made in good faith and later retracted; it also asserted sincerity of purpose and a legitimate belief in eventual redemption. The Commissioner’s inquiry disclosed that petitioner claimed the right to continue its public activities and that, although petitioner’s articles authorized work for the redemption of members’ war notes, they did not authorize offering services to the public for a fee; that acceptance of war notes for deposit upon payment of fees was beyond its corporate powers; and that petitioner had been previously ordered to desist from collecting such fees but continued to collect them as “service fees.”
On February 28, 1955 the Commissioner issued a formal order: (1) directing the Association and its officers, agents or representatives to stop immediately the registration of Japanese war notes, receiving them for deposit, and charging fees therefor (while permitting admission of members), and (2) directing them to desist from accepting and collecting fees for reparation claims for civilian casualties and other injuries as unauthorized by their articles of incorporation. Petitioner sought review of that order before the Court; the Court noted that only questions of law may be raised on review (section 2, Rule 43, Rules o...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under section 2, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, may petitioner have the Commissioner's factual findings reviewed by the Supreme Court in this proceeding?
- Did the Securities and Exchange Commissioner err in ordering petitioner to stop registering Japanese war notes, receiving them for deposit, and charging fees therefor?
- Did the Commissioner err in ordering petitioner to desist from accepting and collecting fees for reparation claims for...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)