Case Digest (G.R. No. 181381)
Facts:
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Rightfield Property Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 181381, July 20, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Peralta, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sought review under Rule 45 to reverse the Court of Appeals' January 21, 2008 Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 93337, which set aside the SEC's Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004 and its Resolution dated December 15, 2005. Respondent Universal Rightfield Property Holdings, Inc. (URPHI) is a publicly‑registered issuer required to file periodic reports under the Securities Regulation Code (SRC).
Chronology: On May 29, 2003 the SEC revoked URPHI’s registration for failure to file its 2001 Annual Report and several 2002 quarterly reports; this revocation was later lifted on October 24, 2003 after URPHI filed reports and paid a reduced fine. URPHI later again failed to file required reports. On June 25, 2004 the SEC issued a Notice of Hearing directing URPHI to show cause why its registration should not be suspended for non‑filing of the 2003 Annual Report and 2004 first quarter report. At the July 6, 2004 hearing URPHI’s Chief Accountant explained staffing and audit delays. By Order dated July 27, 2004, the SEC suspended URPHI’s registration for sixty days and expressly warned that revocation would follow if URPHI failed to comply.
URPHI still did not file all reports; on August 23, 2004 the SEC directed URPHI to file the 2004 second quarter report and show cause. URPHI requested a final extension until November 15, 2004 (letters of September 13 and 28, 2004). URPHI submitted its 2003 Annual Report on December 1, 2004, but the SEC issued an Order of Revocation on December 8, 2004 for failure to comply within the final extension. URPHI thereafter filed remaining quarterly reports on December 9–14, 2004. URPHI filed a Notice of Appeal and Memorandum dated January 3, 2005; the SEC denied reconsideration in a December 15, 2005 Resolution.
URPHI petitioned the Court of Appeals, which on January 21, 2008 granted the petition and set aside the SEC’s revocation, holding that URPHI was not afforded due process because the July 6, 2004 hearing addressed suspension only and S...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was URPHI denied due process because the SEC did not give a separate notice of hearing specifically for revocation prior to issuing the Order of Revocation dated December 8, 2004?
- If procedural due process was satisfied, was revocation of URPHI’s registration a proper exercise of the SEC’s authority in view of URPHI’s repeated failures to file required reports and the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)