Title
Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. vs. Campos
Case
G.R. No. 138814
Decision Date
Apr 16, 2009
A shareholder challenged MKSE's IPO allocation practices, claiming deprivation of rights. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, ruling no legal basis for his claim, as custom alone does not create enforceable rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 92163)

Petitioners

Makati Stock Exchange, Inc. and its directors Ma. Vivian Yuchengco, Adolfo M. Duarte, Myron C. Papa, Norberto C. Nazareno, George Uy-Tioco, Antonio A. Lopa, Ramon B. Arnaiz, Luis J.L. Virata, and Antonio Garcia, Jr.

Respondent and Substitution

Original petitioner before the SEC was Miguel V. Campos, substituted by his surviving spouse Julia Ortigas vda. de Campos upon his death on May 7, 2001, by resolution of this Court dated October 24, 2001.

Key Dates

• February 10, 1994: SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 filed by Campos before SEC’s SICD.
• June 3, 1993: MKSE Board resolution allegedly depriving Campos of IPO rights.
• February 14 & March 10, 1994: SICD orders granting TRO and preliminary injunction in favor of Campos.
• May 31 & August 14, 1995: SEC en banc nullified SICD’s injunction and denied motion to dismiss.
• February 11, 1997 & May 18, 1999: Court of Appeals granted Campos’s certiorari petition and denied reconsideration.
• April 16, 2009: Decision by this Court.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution; Securities Regulation Code; Revised Rules of Court (Rule 2, Sec. 2; Rule 45); Civil Code provisions on causes of action and obligations (Arts. 1156–1157).

Factual Background

Campos alleged that a 1989 amendment to MKSE’s Articles of Incorporation created the honorary position of Chairman Emeritus in his favor and that by custom, all members equally receive IPO allocations at offering price. He claimed the June 3, 1993 board resolution arbitrarily discontinued his share of IPOs, causing financial injury.

Procedural History Before the SEC

Campos filed a petition with SICD for nullification of the June 3, 1993 resolution, delivery of shares, and damages. SICD issued a TRO and preliminary injunction. Petitioners sought certiorari relief before the SEC en banc, challenging both injunction and denial of their motion to dismiss. The SEC en banc annulled SICD orders and dismissed Campos’s petition for failure to state a cause of action.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Campos elevated the SEC en banc orders to the Court of Appeals via certiorari. On February 11, 1997, the appellate court granted relief, setting aside the SEC en banc rulings. Motion for reconsideration was denied on May 18, 1999, prompting the present appeal under Rule 45.

Issue

Whether the petition in SEC Case No. 02-94-4678 stated a cause of action by alleging a legally enforceable right and its correlative obligation, sufficient to maintain relief.

Legal Analysis

A cause of action requires (1) a legal right of the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding obligation of the defendant, and (3) an act or omission violating that right. When testing sufficiency, allegations are hyp

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.