G.R. No. 168266 - Cargill, Inc. vs. Intra Strata Assurance Corp.

On February 10, 1994, respondent Miguel V. Campos filed SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 with the Securities, Investigation and Clearing Department (SICD) of the SEC against Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. (MKSE) and its directors, seeking:

Nullification of the June 3, 1993 MKSE Board Resolution depriving him of IPO allocations.
Delivery of the IPO shares at offering price.
Payment of ₱2 million moral damages, ₱1 million exemplary damages, and ₱500,000 attorney’s fees.

On February 14, 1994, the SICD issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO); on March 10, 1994, it granted a Writ of Preliminary Injunction enjoining implementation of the contested resolution.

Petitioners filed SEC-EB No. 393 (petition for certiorari) to annul the injunction order and, on March 11, 1994, moved to dismiss the petition for mootness (due to license cancellation), lack of jurisdiction, and failure to state a cause of action; SICD denied the motion on May 4, 1994 (leading to SEC-EB No. 403).
On May 31, 1995 (SEC-EB No. 393), the SEC en banc nullified the preliminary injunction; on August 14, 1995 (SEC-EB No. 403), it annulled the denial of the motion to dismiss and ordered dismissal of respondent’s petition.

Respondent filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 38455) assailing the two SEC en banc orders.
On February 11, 1997, the Court of Appeals granted the petition, setting aside the SEC en banc orders; its resolution denying reconsideration was issued on May 18, 1999.

Makati Stock Exchange and its directors petitioned for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court.
Respondent Miguel V. Campos died on May 7, 2001; substituted by wife Julia Ortigas vda. de Campos per Supreme Court resolution dated October 24, 2001.

Whether the SEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing respondent’s petition for failure to state a cause of action.
Whether the grant of IPO allocations constituted a mere accommodation without creating a legally enforceable right.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the SEC en banc abused discretion by making an extended inquiry into the truth of allegations and using extraneous evidence.
Whether IPO allocations are intended for distribution to the investing public, rendering respondent’s claim for damages illusory and his petition a nuisance suit.