Title
Crisostomo vs. Securities and Exchange Commission
Case
G.R. No. 89095
Decision Date
Nov 6, 1989
Sixto Crisostomo challenged SEC's approval of foreign investment in UDMC, alleging constitutional violations. SC upheld SEC's decision, ruling no constitutional breach and censuring Crisostomo for forum-shopping.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252189)

Corporate and Financial Background

UDMC was incorporated in 1968 with a capital stock later increased to ₱15 million. The Crisostomo group owned approximately 40% and managed the hospital. In 1988, UDMC defaulted on a ₱55 million loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines, triggering foreclosure proceedings by the Asset Privatization Trust. To avert foreclosure and individual surety liability, UDMC officers invited the Yamadas and Enatsus to infuse fresh equity.

Foreign Capital Infusion and Approvals

The Japanese–Filipino group subscribed to 82.09% of UDMC’s outstanding shares through a Stock Purchase Agreement and Amended Memorandum of Agreement. The Board of Investments, Central Bank, and SEC reviewed and approved the transactions. Shares were issued by UDMC’s authorized officers, resulting in 30% foreign ownership (Japanese citizens) and 52% owned by a Filipina (Edita Enatsu), conforming to a 70% Filipino ownership declaration.

Initial Legal Challenges and Injunction

On the eve of the August 20, 1988 meetings, Petitioner filed SEC Case No. 3420 and a parallel civil action (RTC Makati Civil Case No. 88-1823) to enjoin the meetings, disqualify the foreign investors, and annul the equity agreements. The hearing officer granted a preliminary injunction on September 13, 1988 and appointed a management committee. Respondents elevated the matter by certiorari to the SEC en banc.

SEC En Banc Resolution and Orders

On February 14, 1989, the SEC en banc, through Commissioner Laureta with concurrences, granted certiorari, vacated the injunction and management committee, and ordered:

  1. Special stockholders’ meeting within 10 days to elect a new board;
  2. Board meeting to elect officers;
  3. Continued hearing of Petitioner’s SEC case on inspection, preemptive and appraisal rights;
  4. Corporate report on nursing school plans.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioner sought CA review (CA-G.R. SP No. 17435). On June 8, 1989, the CA dismissed his petition and lifted its own temporary restraining order against the SEC resolution. His motion for reconsideration was denied. The SEC then issued implementing orders on June 27 and July 21, 1989 directing UDMC’s corporate secretary to call the special meeting despite the pending motion for reconsideration.

Petition to the Supreme Court

Petitioner filed G.R. No. 89095 for certiorari and prohibition, seeking vacatur of the SEC’s en banc resolution and orders, and restoration of the hearing officer’s injunction. He alleged abuse of discretion by the SEC in:

  • Overturning the hearing officer’s orders;
  • Violating constitutional limits on foreign land and educational institution ownership;
  • Premature implementation of its orders.

He also filed G.R. No. 89555 to review the CA decision, effectively raising identical issues.

Constitutional and Procedural Issues

Foreign Ownership Limits

  • Article XII, Section 7: Private lands
  • Article XII, Section 14; Article XIV, Section 4(2): Educational institutions require at least 60% Filipino capital
    The SEC record showed 70% Filipino shareholding, precluding any constitutional breach. The foreign investors held equity but did not practice medicine, so no professional-practice violation arose.

Prematurity of SEC Orders

  • Rule 39, Section 4: A judgment vacating a preliminary injunction is immediately executory and not subject to stay pending appeal.
    CA’s lifting of its injunction allowed immediate SEC implementation.

Forum-Shopping
Petitioner litigated identical issues in multiple foru

    ...continue reading

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