SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320Danilo L. Concepcion vs. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)

Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

DANILO L. CONCEPCION Liquidator-Appellant, SEC En Banc Case No.03-14-320

- versus - Promulgated: 04 March 2025

PHILIPPINES, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE Respondent-Appellee.

DECISION

Companies (the "EYCO Group"), Danilo L. Concepcion (the "Liquidator- Appellant") assailing the Order dated 28 January 2014 (the "Assailed Order") issued by the Special Hearing Panel 2 (SHP 2) which denied his Motion to Stay Execution dated 19 February 2013,the dispositive portion March 2014 (the"Appeal) filed by the Liquidator of the EYCO Group of of which reads: Before the Commission is the Memorandum on Appeal dated 21

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Stay Execution filed by the Liquidator of EYCO Group dated 19 February 2013 is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

THE RELEVANT FACTS

Million (PhP150,000,000.00) to Nikkon Industrial Corporation (Nikkon) under the terms and conditions of the Credit Line Agreement executed (DBP) granted a credit accommodation for Pesos: One Hundred Fifty by DBP and Nikkon.1 On 11 December 1996,the Development Bank of the Philippines

Kuan (the "Yutingco Spouses"), together with one Ten Leng Valencia executed a Deed of Assignment of Rights where they"ceded, transferred and assigned unto and in favor of' Nikkon, all their rights and interests On 18 March 1997,the spouses Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee

1 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "B"

Danilo L. Concepcion v. Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320 Page 2 of 7 DECISION

over a parcel of land located in Valenzuela City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.V-39089 (theSubject Property)

On 16 September 1997, a Petition to be declared in a state of Suspension of Payments and Rehabilitation (the "Petition") was filed by the EYCO Group of Companies3 (the"EYCO Group"),together with three (3) major stockholders, praying for the formation and appointment of a rehabilitation receiver/committee,and the approval of the rehabilitation plan; or in the alternative, the liquidation and dissolution of the corporations.4

On 19 September 1997, the Commission issued a Stay Order

the EYCO Group before any court, tribunal, office, board or commission; directing the suspension of all actions, claims and proceedings against

and enjoining the latter from disposing of its properties except in the ordinary course of business.5

On 10 November 1997,DBP filed a complaint (for collection of a sum of money with prayer for issuance of writ of preliminary attachment) against the Spouses Yutingco (Nikkon not being a party to

Makati) which was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-2653 (the "RTC Case").e the case before the Regional Trial Court Branch 146 of Makati City(RTC-

On 14 September 1999,the Commission En Banc issued an Order

the Liquidator-Appellant was appointed as the liquidator of the EYCO Group.? (in SEC Case No.09-97-5764) declaring the EYCO Group insolvent,and ordering its liquidation and dissolution. Consequently, on 31 May 2001

On 13 January 1998,the RTC-Makati issued a writ of preliminary attachment over the Subject Property in favor of DBP.8

6 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "B" 8 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "B". Printing House Inc., Nikon Plaza Inc., Nikon Land Inc., EYCO Properties Inc. and Thames Philippines 5 Id. Par. 7. 7 Id. Par. 8 2 Ibid. (page 14) 3 Nikon Industrial Corporation, Nikolite Industrial Corporation, 2000 Industries Corporation, Trade Hope Industrial Corporation, First Unibrands Food Corporation, Integrated Steel Corporation, Clarion 4 Appeal. Pars. 5 and 6. Inc

Danilo L. Concepcion v. Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320 Page 3 of 7 DECISION

On 11 April 2002,the Commission issued an Order approving the Liquidation Plan (the "Plan") submitted by the Liquidator-Appellant.

The Consortium of Creditor Banks (the "Consortium") and the EYCO Group forthwith entered into an Agreement dated 10 February 2003 designed to implement the Plan. In particular, the EYC0 Group and the majority stockholders thereof i.e. the spouses Eulogio Yutingco and Wong Bee Kuan (the "Yutingco Spouses") agreed to surrender certain properties to the Liquidator-Appellant. Included in the said properties is a parcel of land located in Valenzuela City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.V-39089 which was cancelled,and TCT No.V-67571

Appellant, in trust for the creditors of the EYCO Group, in compliance (the "Subject Property was issued under the name of the Liquidator

with the Plan.10

On 31 January 2005, the RTC Makati rendered a Decision (the "RTC

interests and attorneys' fees.i1 Decision") ordering Yutingco Spouses to pay DBP the sum of P111,925,660.11 and the peso equivalent of $1,565,075.35, plus

The Decision of the RTC-Makati was affirmed by the Court of

Decisions dated 10 October 2011 and 27 June 2012, respectively.12 Appeals (CA), and subsequently by the Supreme Court (SC),in their

On 11 April 2013,Liquidator-Appellant filed with the RTC-Makati an Affidavit of Third-Party Claim maintaining that the preliminary attachment on the Subject Property,being a corporate asset of the EYCO

it cannot be used to answer for any judgment in favor of DBP.13 Group which he was holding in trust for its creditors,should be lifted as

latter of the Assailed Order which is now the subject of the instant Appeal. Execution (the "Motion") with the SHP2 resulting in the issuance by the On 15 April 2013, Liquidator-Appellant filed the Motion to Stay

Party Claim of Liquidator-Appellant,issued an Order (the "RTC Order") On 5 August 2015,the RTC-Makati,acting on the Affidavit of Third-

which directed the lifting and release of the Subject Property after finding

Appeal.Par.9. 10 id. (see Annex "E). 12 Ibid. Pars. 11 and 12. 13 Ibid. Par. 13 (see Annex "E"). 11 Appeal.Par.11.

Danilo L. Concepcion v. Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320 Page 4 of 7 DECISION

more interest in the Subject Property which has already been transferred that the levy on attachment upon the same was improper. The RTc- Makati ruled that at the time of attachment, the Spouses Yutingco had no

to Nikkon.14

levy on attachment upon the Subject Property by the RTC-Makati was not sole defendants in the RTC Case,"only the properties belonging to them can rightfully and legally be subject to attachment". Thus, the lifting of the dated 27 March 2018 (the "CA Decision). The CA ruled that being the attended by grave abuse of discretion.15 The RTC Order was upheld by the Court of Appeals in its Decision

promulgated on 26 November 2018 (the "SC Resolution") agreed in toto Decision became final and executory on 10 July 2018 as shown by the with the ratiocination of the CA and affirmed the CA Decision.17 The SC Entry of Judgment issued by the SC. The Supreme Court (First Division), in its Resolution16

RTC-Makati has lifted the writ of attachment on the Subject Property on the basis of the SC Resolution which has attained finality On 19 June 2020,DBP filed a Manifestation confirming that the

lifting of the attachment over the Subject Property, the issue presented in the Appeal has become moot and academic. where he argued that with the finality of the SC Decision affirming the On 14 July 2023, the Liquidator-Appellant filed a Manifestation

ISSUE

Whether the Sc Resolution has mooted the instant Appeal

RULING

We agree with Liquidator-Appellant and dismiss the Appeal.

14 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "A". 15 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "B" 14 Appeal. Par. 11 16 G.R. No. 241643 17 Manifestation dated 19 June 2020. See Annex "B

Danilo L.Concepcion v.Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No.03-14-320 Page 5 of 7 DECISION

considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable It is a rule established in jurisprudence that a case or issue is

the courts and quasi-judicial bodies are not tasked to render an advisory condition to the Commission's (as well as the courts') valid exercise of its must be a definite and concrete dispute touching on the legal relations of the parties who have adverse legal interests. The reason for this is that use. The existence of an actual case or controversy is an indispensable power of adjudication. An actual case or controversy exists when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims between the parties that is susceptible or ripe for judicial resolution.18 Ajusticiable controversy must neither be conjectural nor moot and academic. There opinion on what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.19 controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or

consequence of the occurrence of a supervening event, a judgment thereon can no longer be enforced as the legal issue has ceased to exist, the Supreme Court ruled that a case becomes moot when, as a In Penafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration2o

to wit

actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no of mootness. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful things, it cannot be enforced. (Emphasis supplied) A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground purpose or have any practical legal effect because,in the nature of

Commission an Order directing the stay of the execution,to prevent DBP The instant Appeal was filed for the purpose of securing from the

19 "This Court's constitutional mandate does not include the duty to answer all of life's questions. No 18 Congressman vs The Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 157584, April 2, 2009) question,no matter how interesting or compelling, can be answered by this Court if it cannot be shown that there is an "actual and an antagonistic assertion of rights by one party against the other in a controversy wherein judicial intervention is unavoidable."

thought experiments. We do not decide hypothetical, feigned, or abstract disputes, or those collusively arranged by parties without real adverse interests. If this Court were to do otherwise and jump headlong into ruling on every matter brought before us, we may close off avenues for opportune, future litigation." (Falcis v. Civil Registrar General. G.R.No. 217910, September 3, 2019) 20 G.R. No. 208660, March 5, 2014 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division]. This Court does not issue advisory opinions. We do not act to satisfy academic questions or dabble in

Danilo L. Concepcion v. Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320 Page 6 of DECISION

from executing a levy on the Subject Property (pursuant to the RTC Decision) which was being held by the Liquidator-Appellant in trust for the creditors of the EYCO Group under the approved Plan. In other words, while the Liquidator-Appellant recognized that DBP was entitled to the payment of the amount provided in the RTC Decision, he equally maintained that the execution and satisfaction thereof should not involve the Subject Property since its debtors i.e. the Spouses Yutingco have no more interest over the same.

Relative thereto, We are cognizant of the fact that at the time of the filing of the Motion i.e.15 April 2013,the RTC-Makati have not yet ruled on, and affirmed that the levy on attachment upon the Subject Property Was improper. Without such determination and ruling from the RTC Makati,We cannot fault the SHP 2 for denying the Motion especially that the annotation of the levy of the writ of preliminary attachment was carried over from the old title i.e. TCT No. V-39089 of the Subject Property to its new title i.e. TCT No. V-67571.

However, the issuance by the RTC-Makati of the RTC Order expressly lifting the writ of attachment on the basis of a finding that at the time of its issuance, the Spouses Yutingco had no more interest in the Subject Property, the position of Liquidator-Appellant i.e. the Subject

creditors, was affirmed. Thus, when the Sc Resolution, definitively affirming the propriety of the lifting of the writ of attachment over the Property pertains to the EYCO Group which was being held in trust for its

Subject Property,has attained finality, the issue presented in the Motion which resulted in the instant Appeal i.e. whether the Subject Property can be attached to satisfy the obligation of the Spouses Yutingco in the RTC Decision, was finally laid to rest, and ceased to be justiciable. In other words, the finality of the SC Resolution which affirmed the lifting of the

properties of the Spouses Yutingco that the DBP can run after in the RTC Case, will render an order directing the stay of the execution involving value because given the current situation, it cannot be enforced. The Sc writ of attachment, and the exclusion of the Subject Property from the the Subject Property superfluous, and will no longer have any practical

Resolution resulted in the cassation of the controversy which arose from the conflicting positions of the parties relating to the status of the Subject

Spouses Yutingco. Property and its susceptibility of answering for the obligations of the

Danilo L. Concepcion v. Development Bank of the Philippines SEC En Banc Case No. 03-14-320 Page 7 of 7 DECISION

On the basis of the supervening event relating to the issuance of the Sc Resolution which affirmed the lifting of the writ of attachment over the Subject Property,the dismissal of the instant Appeal on the ground of mootness is therefore in order.

dated 21 March 2014 is hereby DISMISSED for having become moot and WHEREFORE,premises considered, the Memorandum on Appeal

academic.

SO ORDERED.

Makati City, Philippines.

EMILIO SAQUINO

Chail person

JAVEY PAUL D.FRANCISCO* Commissioner KARLO S.BELLO Commissioner

MCJILL BRYANT T.FERNANDEZ ROGELIO V.QUEVEDO**

Commissioner Commissioner

**Inhibited *On Official Business