Title
Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 125469
Decision Date
Oct 27, 1997
PALI sought public listing, but PSE denied due to unresolved ownership claims by Marcos heirs. SEC reversed, but Supreme Court upheld PSE's discretion, citing sequestration and investor concerns.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 125469)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Legal Framework
    • Petitioner: Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. (PSE)
    • Private Respondent: Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI)
    • Government Respondents: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Court of Appeals (CA)
    • Governing Statutes: Revised Securities Act (RA 8799), Presidential Decree No. 902-A
  • Chronology of Proceedings
    • Initial Listing Application
      • January 1995: SEC issues PALI a Permit to Sell shares to the public.
      • February 8, 1996: PSE Listing Committee recommends approval of PALI’s listing application.
    • Marcos Family Objection and PSE Rejection
      • February 14–20, 1996: Marcos heirs claim ownership of certain “Puerto Azul” properties; PALI disputes; PCGG confirms sequestration and a TRO is issued.
      • March 27, 1996: PSE Board of Governors rejects PALI’s listing for “serious claims, issues and circumstances” affecting asset ownership.
    • SEC Intervention and Subsequent Proceedings
      • April 11, 1996: PALI petitions SEC to review PSE’s decision under SEC’s supervisory power (Sec. 3 RSA; Sec. 6(j),(m) PD 902-A).
      • April 24, 1996: SEC reverses PSE’s denial and orders immediate listing (subject to additional disclosures).
      • May 9, 1996: SEC denies PSE’s motion for reconsideration; orders full material disclosure by PALI.
      • May 17, 1996: PSE files a Petition for Review with the CA.
      • June 27, 1996: CA dismisses PSE’s petition, upholding SEC.
      • August 15, 1996: PSE files Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • SEC’s Jurisdiction and Authority
    • Does the SEC have the power to review and reverse a stock exchange’s listing decision?
    • Did the SEC exceed its jurisdiction or act ultra vires in ordering PSE to list PALI shares?
  • PSE’s Discretion and Alleged Arbitrary Conduct
    • Did PSE act arbitrarily or abusively in denying PALI’s listing application?
    • Was there bad faith or moral obliquity in the PSE’s exercise of discretion?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.