Case Digest (G.R. No. 130328)
Facts:
UBS Marketing Corporation and Johnny K.H. Uy, G.R. No. 130328, May 31, 2000, First Division, Kapunan, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision of 21 August 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 41198 reversing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) en banc order that had required respondents to render a full accounting.The dispute arose from family-business divisions among members of the Uy family of Bacolod City, who interlockedly owned and managed several corporations, notably UBS Marketing Corporation and Soon Kee Commercial, Inc. Petitioners Johnny K.H. Uy and his wife and private respondents Ban Hua Uy‑Flores, Ban Ha Uy‑Chua (sisters) and Roland M. King (accountant) were formerly interlocking stockholders and officers. Following intra-family conciliation and a division of assets formalized by deeds of assignment (5 June 1987) and formalized on 1 July 1987, petitioners accused respondents of retaining corporate books, funds and other assets that belonged to UBS.
On 6 April 1988 petitioners filed SEC Case No. 3328, seeking recovery of UBS’s corporate books and an accounting, among other reliefs. Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of SEC jurisdiction, arguing the controversy was not intra-corporate. The SEC hearing officer denied the motion and, after respondents defaulted, received evidence ex parte and on 3 May 1995 rendered a default judgment ordering multiple remedies, including (inter alia) production of books (item 1), a full accounting of assets and receivables for Soon Kee and UBS (item 2), monetary awards, and reversion of titles.
On appeal the SEC en banc set aside the hearing officer’s judgment except for paragraph 2 — it ordered respondents to render a full and complete accounting of all assets, properties and receivables of Soon Kee and UBS. Respondents’ motion for partial reconsideration was denied by SEC en banc on 24 June 1996. The Court of Appeals, however, on 21 August 1997 reversed and set aside the SEC en banc order in its entirety, holding that the accounting ordered was not prayed for, that it amounted to specific performance beyond SEC competence, and applying by analogy Section 5, Rule 18 of the old Rules of Court to limit the default judgment.
Petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari, challenging (1) the CA’s acceptance of the petition without an affidavit of material dates, (2) the CA’s characterization of the relief as specific performance outside SEC jurisdiction, (3) the CA’...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to respondents’ petition for review without the required Affidavit of Material Dates?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in applying Section 6, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (or related impleading rules) to fault the SEC proceedings?
- Was the accounting ordered by the SEC en banc beyond the SEC’s jurisdiction because it constituted specific performance or relief different in kind from that prayed for?
- Did the SEC en banc exceed its authority in ordering a full acco...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)