G.R. No. 187635 - Nollen, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections

On September 16, 1997, the EYCO Group of Companies filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking:

Declaration of suspension of payment;
Appointment of a rehabilitation receiver/committee;
Approval of a rehabilitation plan, with an alternative prayer for liquidation and dissolution of corporations.

The petition, which depicted the EYCO Group as having sufficient assets to cover debts but being unable to meet them as they fell due, also included the participation of the Yutingcos, individuals holding controlling interests in the composite corporations.
The SEC Hearing Panel found the petition sufficient and, on September 19, 1997, issued the Suspension Order, thereby suspending all actions, claims, and proceedings against EYCO and its affiliates pending the SEC’s review.

A consortium of private banks, which had granted credit facilities to EYCO, convened to discuss collective collection strategies and agreed to form a management committee (ManCom) to represent them.
Union Bank, however, broke away from the consortium without notice and pursued its own legal route by filing multiple civil cases against EYCO and its affiliates, including:

A complaint for a sum of money filed on September 23, 1997 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City;
Applications for preliminary attachment on properties held by EYCO and the Yutingcos, leading to the annotation of levies on land titles.

On October 22, 1997, Union Bank moved, on jurisdictional grounds, for the dismissal of SEC Case No. 09-97-5764, while EYCO simultaneously submitted its rehabilitation plan.
In January 1998, in a bid to centralize proceedings, the SEC Hearing Panel appointed regular members for the newly created ManCom for EYCO.
Without awaiting the SEC’s decision on its motion to dismiss, Union Bank further filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) to nullify the SEC’s suspension order and the creation of the ManCom.
The CA in its early ruling (December 22, 1997) dismissed Union Bank’s petition for certiorari on the ground of forum shopping.

In its May 19, 1998 decision (G.R. No. 131729), this Court endorsed the CA ruling, confirming the SEC’s jurisdiction over EYCO’s petition for suspension of payment; however, it clarified that the SEC’s jurisdiction did not extend to petitions filed by individuals like the Yutingcos.
Following this, the Makati RTC suspended the proceedings in Union Bank’s collection suit (Civil Case No. 97-2184) indefinitely, except for the claim against the individual-defendants, which were allowed to proceed with appropriate time to answer.
Subsequently, on December 18, 1998, the SEC Hearing Panel approved EYCO’s rehabilitation plan, prompting the consortium of creditor banks to appeal the order en banc (SEC AC No. 649), which led to the disapproval of the petition for suspension of payment and an order for liquidation and dissolution of the EYCO Group.

With SEC’s en banc order on March 31, 2001, respondent Danilo L. Concepcion was appointed as the liquidator of EYCO in lieu of the dissolved Liquidation Committee.
Acting on his new role, Concepcion:

Filed a Motion to Intervene and a Motion to Set Aside the earlier Order of Attachment in Civil Case No. 97-2184;
Subsequently submitted a Liquidation Plan to the SEC, which was approved on April 11, 2002.

Despite these actions, the Makati RTC initially denied his motion to intervene on August 8, 2002, citing a lack of standing and questioning the validity of his appointment, a decision later revisited by the CA through a petition for certiorari filed by Concepcion.

The CA, in its decision dated July 22, 2003, reversed the Makati RTC’s orders by allowing Concepcion to intervene in Civil Case No. 97-2184, annulling the RTC’s partial judgment and default order.
Union Bank, dissatisfied with this outcome, filed a petition for review before this Court under Rule 45, challenging:

The validity of Concepcion's intervention given his alleged lack of legal interest and legal personality in the matter;
The competence of the SEC to appoint a liquidator in a case that might be deemed under the insolvency jurisdiction of the RTC; and
The appropriateness of using certiorari as a remedy when an appeal might have been available.

Whether the SEC possessed the jurisdiction to declare EYCO in a state of suspension of payment and to order its liquidation and dissolution, even if EYCO was later eventually deemed insolvent under other laws.
Whether respondent Concepcion’s appointment as liquidator by the SEC is valid, particularly in the context of purported jurisdictional conflicts between the SEC and the RTC under the Insolvency Law.

Whether Concepcion, as the duly-appointed liquidator, has a legal interest in intervening in Civil Case No. 97-2184 to protect the assets and the interests of EYCO’s creditors, especially given the pending collection proceedings against the attached properties.
Whether the intervention by Concepcion is proper under the requirements of Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to challenge the denial of Concepcion’s motion to intervene, in light of the availability of appeal under Rule 45.
Whether traditional appeal would have provided a speedy and adequate remedy given the urgency and immediate stakes involved.