Title
Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Pimentel
Case
G.R. No. L-4228
Decision Date
Jan 23, 1952
SEC investigates Marcos Pimentel for refusing to produce corporate records, upheld by courts as lawful under SEC's authority to enforce Corporation Law.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-4228)

Background of the Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received a complaint from Nieves G. Argonza and Placida G. de los Reyes, alleging that Marcos Pimentel and Julia B. Pimentel had violated Section 51 of the Corporation Law, which mandates corporations to maintain accurate records of business transactions. On December 13, 1948, the SEC ordered a trial examination of the books and records of International Colleges, Inc., and subsequently issued a subpoena to Marcos Pimentel on December 20, 1948, compelling him to produce the requested documents.

Non-Compliance and Legal Proceedings

Marcos Pimentel failed to comply with the subpoena and later filed an opposition to the SEC’s examination order, which was denied by the SEC on January 11, 1949. Despite further attempts by a representative of the SEC to obtain the documents on January 18, 1949, Pimentel again refused to cooperate. Consequently, the SEC sought a declaration of contempt against him in the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Lower Court Decision

The Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that Marcos Pimentel was in contempt of the SEC's order and imposed a fine of P50.00, with the stipulation of subsidiary imprisonment if he was unable to pay, and mandated that he produce the requested books and records before the SEC's representatives at a designated time and place. This ruling led to Pimentel’s appeal.

Legal Basis for SEC's Authority

The SEC based its authority to conduct the examination on Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 287. This statute empowers the SEC to enforce laws affecting corporations and conduct necessary investigations. The respondent contended that this authority was limited to issues of registration, arguing that the SEC had overstepped its bounds.

Analysis of Respondent's Contentions

Respondent-appellant's arguments were rejected by the court. It was established that the SEC holds broader powers than merely registration, as it is also responsible for enforcing all laws impacting corporations without restriction. Furthermore, the court noted that the investigation into the alleged Section 51 violation is not a function being exercised by any other bureau or office.

Rights to Inspection of Corporate Records

Respondent also argued that only stockholders or officers of a corporation are entitled to inspect books and that compliance with the SEC's demand would indirectly allow non-stockholders to access private corporate records. The court countered this by asserting that the SEC is authorized to conduct such examinations to fulfill its legitimate duties under the law, thus reinforcing the importance of regulatory oversight.

Visitorial Powers of the President

The respondent claimed that only the President of the Philippines could order investiga

...continue reading

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