SEC Adm. Case No. 10-12-270 Petition for Revocation of Certificate of Incorporation of La Fuerza, Inc.

SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City Securities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

INC. IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION FOR INCORPORATION OF LA FUERZA REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF

MARY JANE L. YU. Petitioner-Appellant.

LA FUERZA, INC., represented by its President, Prudencio N. Lim, Jr.. versu Respondent-Appellee. SEC En Banc Case No. 10-12-270 For: Violation of Corporation Code Reportorial Requirements and the SEC Guidelines on

DECISION

Petitioner-Appellant, on October 25, 2012, praying for the reversal and setting aside of Certificate of Registration of La Fuerza, Inc. (Respondent-Appellee), the dispositive portion of which states: the Order of the Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD), dated September 11; 2012,"which denied Petitioner-Appellant's' petition to revoke the Before the Commission En Banc is the appeal filed by Mary Jane L. Yu.

Certificate of Incorporation of LA FUERZA, INC. for non-compliance with the Commission's reportorial requirements is hereby DENIED. "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Revocation of the

this Department within fifteen (15) days from receipt of this Order. with reportorial requirements with the Compliance and Monitoring Division of Further, respondent is directed to settle its penalties for non-compliance

as willful defiance to a lawful Order of the Commission and shall cause the issuance of the Order of Revocation of its certificate of incorporation." Failure of the respondent to comply with the directive shall be construed

(1) the General Information Sheets (GIS) for 2010 and 2011. and (2) the Audited consistently submitted its reports within the prescribed period as required by law except: In the above-mentioned Order, the CRMD ruled that Respondent-Appellee has

DG SRNATE F

Decision dated March 4, 20 14 La Fuerza inc Page 2 of 3

had been, remiss in the submission. " In fact, it already supmitted its 2012 GIS and 2007] given the fact that the Respondent-Appellee is actively operating and is willing to comply Financial Statements (AFS) for the years 2008-2011, and) as a gesture of good faith, has undertaken to submit the required reports and to pay the penalties for the periods when it AFS. Thus, the CRMD found that revocation of franchise would be too drastic a penalty with the Commission's reportorial requirements.

December 3, 2012 arguing that the appeal has no factual and legal basis, and hence, Prudencio N. Lim, Jr., filed with the Commission praying that the Commission dismiss the same and affirm the denial of the Petition for Revocation dated 7 February 2012. On December 4, 2012, Respondent-Appellee, represented by: its President, its Reply Memorandum dated

that the Respondent-Appellee has miserably failed to comply with its commitment to submit the reportorial requirements, specifically its AFS from 2008 and onwards. On September 12, 2013, the Petitioner-Appellantfiled a Manifestation, alleging

October 25, 2013 against Petitioner-Appellant and Ms. Josephine L. Chang, Respondent- CRMD's Order, on the ground that they are sabotaging the prompt submission of the Respondent-Appellee's AFS. October 29,2013, a Motion to Cause Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum, dated Appellee's Treasurer/Vice-President for Finance and the Intervenor in the assailed In reply to Petitioner-Appellant's Manifestion, Respondent-Appellee filed, on

Withdraw Appeal, dated October 23, 2013, alleging that during the board and the Respondent-Appellee informed her that there will be full compliance with the within a reasonable period. Accordingly, she moved that the Commission allow the withdrawal of the appeal. stockholders' "meeting conducted on October 22, 2013, the new corporate officers of Commission's reportorial requirements. Petitioner-Appellant was sufficiently convinced by the new corporate officer's good faith and intention to duly submit the required reports In the meantime, Petitioner-Appellant filed on October 29, 2013 a Motion to

Testificandum dated October 25, 2013 against Petitioner-Appellant and Chang be granted. dated November 4; 2013, reiterating that the Motion to Cause Issuance of Subpoena Ad On November 4, 2013, Respondent-Appellee filed. a Manifestation and Motion,

another Manifestation and Motion, dated January 21, 2014, withdrawing the Motion to Cause the Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum dated October 25, 2013. Eventually, on January 27, 2014, Respondent-Appellant, through Lim, filed

complied with the reportorial requirements stated in the assailed Order. The records of the Commission show that the Re$pondent-Appellee has already

-iis

Decision dated March 4, 2014 La Fuerza, Inc. Page 3 of 3

case, the same has ceased to present a justiciable controversy. By virtue .of the supervening events that transpired during the pendency of the

GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion to Withdraw Appeal is

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, Philippines; March 4, 2014.

TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson

0

M A. JUANITAE. C Commissioner TO MANUEL H Commissioner B. GAITE

M Aian.K ELADIC M. JALA ssioner ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner