Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-23-029)
Facts:
Securities and Exchange Commission, represented by Commissioner Emilio B. Aquino v. Hon. Oscar P. Noel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-23-029 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4955-RTJ), January 23, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Kho, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The complainant is the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), represented by Commissioner Emilio B. Aquino; the respondent is Hon. Oscar P. Noel, Jr., Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 35, General Santos City. The SEC filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law arising from respondent’s actions in Special Civil Case No. 19-806 (Kapa-Community Ministry International, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission), which sought injunctive relief against an SEC Cease and Desist Order (CDO).
On February 14, 2019 the SEC issued a CDO against Kapa-Community Ministry International, Inc. (KAPA) for selling securities in the form of investment contracts in violation of RA 8799 (The Securities Regulation Code). KAPA initially moved before the SEC to lift the CDO but later withdrew that motion and on March 1, 2019 filed a petition for injunction with application for a TRO/WPI in the RTC, claiming the CDO violated its right to religious freedom.
Procedurally in the trial courts: RTC Branch 58 denied KAPA’s request for a 72-hour TRO on March 1, 2019, indicating KAPA’s proper remedy was before the SEC. The case was later raffled to RTC Branch 35 (respondent’s branch). On March 12–13, 2019 the SEC was served with a Notice of Hearing and filed a Manifestation (asserting lack of RTC jurisdiction); respondent expunged the Manifestation for violation of the Efficient Use of Paper Rule. On March 15 respondent granted a 20‑day TRO on the ground the prayer went unopposed (the TRO was issued March 19), and on April 4 respondent issued a WPI in favor of KAPA, reasoning that constitutional religious‑liberty claims fall within regular courts’ jurisdiction and that the TRO/WPI did not cover securities issues.
The SEC then filed an administrative complaint with the OCA charging respondent with Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing orders that interfered with a co‑equal body exercising quasi‑judicial powers, citing Section 179 of RA 11232 (Revised Corporation Code). In his Comment respondent argued the SEC failed to defend its order in court, that the RTC had jurisdiction because constitutional religious‑freedom questions were raised, and that the SEC should have availed judicial remedies if it disagreed.
The OCA issued a Report and Recommendation dated August 11, 2020 finding respondent administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and recommending a four‑month suspension, noting the RTC’s Branch ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should respondent be held administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing a TRO and WPI that interfered with the SEC’s CDO?
- Did the RTC have jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief that restrained enforcement of the SEC’s CDO, given the SEC’s quasi‑judicial role and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?
- If liability is established, what penalty is proper under...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)