SEC CDO Case No. 06-19-053 In Re: ALABEL MAASIM MINING CORP. (ALAMICO), ALABEL-MAASIM SMALL SCALE MINING COOPERATIVE and/or ALABEL-MAASIM CREDIT COOPERATIVE(ALAMCCO)., EIPD

ecurities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Commission En Banc Department of Finance

In the Matter of:

(ALMAMICO), ALABEL-MAASIM SMALL COOPERATIVE and/or ALABEL- ALABEL MAASIM MINING CORP SCALE MINING SEC CDO Case No. 06-19-053 MAASIM CREDIT COOPERATIVE (ALAMCCO)

PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTOR

RESOLUTION

Abundanti Ad Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order (Order) dated For consideration of the Commission En Banc is the Motion Ex

Office, Melliza Law Office and Clarin Law Office, personally before the Office of the General Counsel on 8 July 2019. 7 July 2019 filed by the counsels of respondent ALAMCCO, Genita Law

FACTS

following grounds: against respondents Alabel Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative (ALMAMICOOP), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Coporation (ALMAMICO) and Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) on the (EIPD) filed before the Commission En Banc through the Office of the General Counsel, a Motion for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) On 3 June 2019, the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department

a) That ALMAMICOOP represents itself as a valid cooperative despite proper registration and permits from this Commission; not being duly registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and solicits investments to the public without the

b) That ALMAMICO was engaged in soliciting investments from the public without proper registration and without securing the necessary license from this Commission; and

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 2 of 14

c) That ALAMCCO was found soliciting investments from persons which are not members of its cooperative and is thus offering/selling securities to the public without the proper registration and permits from this Commission.

issuing a CDO against respondents ALMAMICOOP, ALMAMICO and ALAMCCO. Said CDO expressly stated that: "In accordance with the provisions of Sec. 64.3 of SRC and Sec. 4-3 of the 2016 Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the parties subject of this Cease and Desist Order may file On 4 June 2019, the Commission En Banc found sufficient basis in

a request for the lifting thereof within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

2019, sent through registered mail copies of the CDO to respondents herein. On 2 July 2019, the EIPD, as alleged in their Compliance dated 8 July.

Maharlika, Poblacion (Alabel), Saranggani Province and posted said CDO in of Investigation, proceeded to the business address of respondents at Purok the latter's premises. On 3 July 2019, the EIPD, with the assistance of the National Bureau

Status Quo Ante Order dated 1 July 2019 from Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City in Spl. Civil Case No. 19-809. On 4 July 2019, the Commission received, through private courier, a

2019 via registered mail. On the same date, this Commission issued an order setting the initial hearing of this case on 17 July 2019. Abundanti Ad Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order dated 7 July On 8 July 2019, the counsels of ALAMCCO filed a Motion Ex

regarding the posting of the CDO within respondents' business premises. On 10 July 2019, the EIPD filed their Compliance dated 8 July 2019

by the Commission in an Order dated 17 July 2019. Thus, the hearing was reset to 25 July 2019. Cancellation of Hearing and Resetting dated the same date on the ground that they had to attend another hearing on 17 July 2019. Said Motion was granted On 12 July 2019, counsels of ALAMCCO filed a Motion for

1 Compliance dated 8 July 2019.

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 3 of 14

On 25 July 2019, the parties appeared before the Office of the General Counsel for the hearing of the Motion Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order. During said hearing, counsels of respondent ALAMCCO manifested that they were only representing ALAMCCO and not ALMAMICO. Afterwards, the parties were ordered to file their respective Memoranda within fifteen (15) days from hearing or until 9 August 2019

by this Commission on 14 and 20 August 2019, respectively. ALAMCCO filed its Memorandum via registered mail, which was received On 9 August 2019, the EIPD filed its Memorandum while respondent

case for resolution. On 6 September 2019, the Commission issued an Order submitting the

ISSUES

Upon careful consideration of the submissions of the parties herein, this Commission finds that the following are the relevant issues:

1. Whether or not the Securities and Exchange Commission has

jurisdiction over the respondent ALAMCCO?

2. Whether or not respondent ALAMCCO is engaged in soliciting investments/securities from the public in violation of R.A. 8799?

3. Whether or not the issuance of the subject CDO by the SEC

issued by RTC Branch 59 of General Santos City in Spl. Civil was in violation of the 1 July 2019 Status Quo Ante Order

Case No. 19-809 when the same was served with this Commission on 4 July 2019?

DISCUSSIONS

I The SEC has jurisdiction over respondent ALAMCCO.

Desist Order and Memorandum, respondent ALAMCCO argues that the SEC In their Motion Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and

has no jurisdiction over it since it is a duly registered cooperative and

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO). Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 4 of 14

therefore, it is the Cooperative Development Authority which has the rightful jurisdiction.

jurisdiction by invoking Section 5(d) and (n) of the SRC2 The EIPD, in its Memorandum, refuted ALAMCCO's argument on

This Commission rules for the EIPD.

Firstly, the Supreme Court in the case of Glynna Foronda-Crystal vs Aniana Lawas Son, G.R. No. 221815, 29 November 2017 ruled that "Tilurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists."

tasked to administer and implement the provisions of the SRC." Further Section 5(d) of the SRC also provides that one of the primary powers of the -"the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shall be the primary agency SEC is "the power to regulate, investigate or supervise the activities of Further, Section 4 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) states that

persons to ensure compliance of the provisions of the SRC." Finally, Section 5(i) of the SRC also grants the SEC "the power to issue cease and desist orders to prevent fraud or injury to the public."

SEC pursuant to the SRC is over the investment-taking activities Based on the foregoing doctrine and provisions, the jurisdiction of the

regardless of the nature of the entity engaged in the same. The SRC did

2 Section 5 of the Securities Regulation Code states that:

transparency and shall have the powers and functions provided by this Code, Presidential Act and other existing laws. Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the "SEC. 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the Investment Houses Law, the Financing Company followings powers and functionsL -- 5.1. The Commission shall act with

XXXXX

(d) Regulate, investigate or supervise the activities of persons to ensure compliance;

XXXXX

(n) Exercise such other powers as may be provided by law as well as those which may be implied from, or which are necessary or incidental to the carrying out of, the express powers granted the Commission to achieve the objectives and purposes of these laws."

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 5 of 14

not provide for any distinction as to which entities engaged in investment- taking activities are covered by the law. The same goes for its power to issue cease and desist orders as long as it is issued to prevent fraud or injury to the public. In fact, this Commission has already issued, on several instances,

activities that are not corporations, partnerships and associations registered Cease and Desist Orders3 against entities engaged in investment-taking with the Commission, which remains unquestioned by the Supreme Court as this date. Clearly, the SEC has the authority to regulate any entity offering investments to the public and to issue cease and desist orders against it.

Moreover, respondent ALAMCCO's active participation in this case belies its argument that this Commission has no jurisdiction over respondents

ruled that "by seeking affirmative reliefs from the trial court, the individual has deemed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. A herein. In the case of Ma. Hazelina A. Tujan-Militante vs Ana Kari Carmencita Nustad, G.R. No. 209518, 19 June 2017 the Supreme Court

party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the court to secure the affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such relief,

is in the exercise of its quasi-judicial powers when it took cognizance of this repudiate or question that same jurisdiction." Said doctrine may be applied by analogy to the proceedings before this Commission considering that the latter

case

lifting of the CDO issued against them, which is in the nature of an affirmative relief. Respondent ALAMCCO even filed for a Motion for Cancellation of Here, respondent ALAMCCO prayed before this Commission for the

their Motion and subsequently filed its Memorandum. By praying for said 17 July hearing of this case, which this Commission granted. Lastly. respondent ALAMCCO appeared before this Commission for the hearing of reliefs and actively participating in the proceedings, respondent ALAMCCO Hearing and Resetting dated 12 July 2019 since they are unable to attend the

the Motion they filed was titled "Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam " acceded to the jurisdiction of this Commission notwithstanding the fact that

jurisdiction of the court and applied for several affirmative reliefs with the latter by way of "Ad Cautelam ". In said case, the Supreme Court held that: Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited vs Cecilia Diez Catalan, G.R. No. 159590, 18 October 2004, where the petitioner assailed the The factual antecedents of this case are even similar to the case of Hong

3 In the Matter of: Ada Farm Agri Ventures (SEC CDO Case No. 06-19-049); In the Matter of: Ever Arm Carlo D. Manalang (SEC CDO Case No. 03-16-030_: 034); In the Matter of Satarah Wellness Marketing, Satarah Investment Group, Inc., and Satarah Wellness International (SEC CDO Case No. 05-15-018) and In the Matter of: Jacama Sales and Marketing and Janus Any Marketing (SEC CDO Case No. 06-19-050); Seven Star Merchandise (SEC CDO Case No. 09-16-

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 6 of 14

of Time to File Answer or Motion to Dismiss. HSBANK already "It must be noted that HSBANK initially filed a Motion for Extension Court has held that the filing of motions seeking affirmative relief, such invoked the RTC's jurisdiction over it by praying that its motion for extension of time to file answer or a motion to dismiss be granted. The

as, to admit answer, for additional time to file answer, for reconsideration of a default judgment, and to lift order of default with jurisdiction of the court. Consequently, HSBANK's expressed reservation in its Answer ad cautelam that it filed the same "as a mere precaution against being declared in default, and without motion for reconsideration, are considered voluntary submission to the

pending before the Court of Appeals" to assail the jurisdiction of additional time to file answer or motion to dismiss, HSBANK effectively submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the RTC and prejudice to the Petition for Certiorari and/or Prohibition xxx now the RTC over it is of no moment. Having earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the RTC to secure affirmative relief in its motion for is thereby estopped from asserting otherwise, even before this Court." (Emphasis supplied)

itself to the jurisdiction of the Commission when it sought affirmative reliefs Based on the foregoing, respondent ALAMCCO already submitted

and actively participated in this proceedings. Thus, it is estopped from assailing this Commission's jurisdiction

H. Respondents are offering securities to the public in the form of investment contracts

permits without securing from the the SEC, in proper

SRC. violation of Sec. 8 and 12 of the

In its Motion for Issuance of CDO against the respondents,the EIPD proffered screenshots of the i-Message electronic mails4 reporting the solicitation activities of one "ALMAMICO Cooperative" from the public in

well as its minimum and maximum investments. Further, the EIPD, with the exchange for a 35% monthly return as long as the cooperative operates, as

assistance of the SEC Davao Extension Office, submitted several screenshots?

"ALMAMICO/ALAMCCO Alabel", "ALMAMICO Cooperative ADMIN" and "ALMAMICO Mindanao", which showed the investment matrix of pertaining to Facebook pages of "ALMAMICO/ALAMCCO Digos City"

4 Motion for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, Annexes "D". "G" to "G-1", and "I" to "I-1". 5 Id., Annex "J" to "J-21".

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 7 of 14

respondents herein and the various members/investors promoting the same, as well as videos showing the long line of people waiting for their payout and the investment schemes of herein respondents. Finally, the EIPD presented Certifications from the Market Securities and Regulation Department and the Corporate Governance and Finance Department stating that respondent ALMAMICOOP and ALMAMICO have not registered any of its securities

public. and that they have not been issued any permit to offer and sell securities to the

Subsequently in its Memorandum, the EIPD attached the CDA Advisory issued against respondent ALAMCCO, along with the CDA Cease and Desist Orders issued against ALMAMICOOP and ALAMCCO. Said Advisory and CDO7 was issued by the CDA against ALAMCCO on the ground that it was found to be soliciting investments from non-members, which is in violation of their Articles of Cooperation and the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008. As for the CDO8 against ALMAMICO

it fact, it was not registered with the CDA. a legitimate cooperative in order to solicit investments from the public, when Cooperative, the same was issued by reason of its misrepresentation that it is

Respondent ALAMCCO, in its Motion Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam Tc Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order and Memorandum, merely denied the accusation of soliciting investments from non-members and averred that the investments are the very contributions of its members.

After a careful consideration of the submissions of the parties herein. this Commission finds substantial evidence that respondents are engaged in offering/selling securities to the public in the form of investment contracts.

Securities are defined in Section 3.1 of the SRC, viz:

in a commercial enterprise or profit making venture and evidenced by Section 3. Definition of terms. 3.1 "Securities are shares participation or interests in a corporation or

a certificate, contract, instrument, whether written or electronic in character. It includes:

XXXXX

(b) Investment contracts, certificates of interest or participation in a profit sharing agreement, certificates of deposit for future subscription;

: Id., Annex "B" Memorandum of EIPD dated 9 August 2019, Annex "C". 7 Id., Annex "D"

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 8 of 14

XXXXX

Further, Sections 8 and 12 of the SRC provide that:

approved by the Commission. Prior to such sale, information on the "8.1 Securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the Philippines, without a registration statement duly filed with and

securities, in such form and with such substance as the Commission may prescribe, shall be made available to each prospective purchaser.

12.1 All securities required to be registered under Subsection 8.1 shall be registered through the filing by the issuer in the main office of the Commission, of a sworn registration statement with respect to such

as the Commission prescribe. securities, in such form and containing such information and document

Section 26.3 of the 2015 Implementing Rules and Regulation of the SRC further provides for prohibited representations, dealings and solicitations, to wit:

"26.3. Prohibited Representations, Dealings and Solicitations It shall by unlawful for any:

XXX

securities or solicit investment in securities and other investment of a broker dealer and the securities are registered under the Code or exempt from registration pursuant to Sections 9 and 10 thereof. contracts, unless he is a registered broker, dealer or licensed salesman 26.3.5. Person, whether as principal or agent, to buy, sell or deal in

disposing or, subscribing for securities. to offer to enter into any agreement for or with a view to acquiring, person, or inducing or attempting to induce any person to enter into or Dealing in securities includes making or offering to make with any

information which includes the act of proving information about a Solicitation is the act of seeking or asking for business or

of making another person a client or closing or bringing in a sale or security or investment product being offered for sale with the view

purchase of security or investment product. The solicitor need not be a signatory to any contract relative to such offer or sale of the security.

common enterprise and is led to expect profits primarily from the (collectively "contract") whereby a person invests his money in a An investment contract means a contract, transaction or scheme

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 9 of 14

efforts of others. An investment contract is presumed to exist whenever a person seeks to use the money or property of others on the promise of profits.

investors "pool"" their resources, creating a common enterprise, even if the promoter receives nothing more than a broker's commission." (Emphasis supplied) A common enterprise is deemed created when two (2) or more

Finally, the Supreme Court in the case of Power Homes Unlimited Corporation vs Securities and Exchange Commission and Noel Manero, G.R. No. 164182, 26 February 2008 applied the Howey Test as pronounced in the American Case "SEC vs W.J. Howey Co.", which provides for the elements of an investment contract, to wit:

expectation of profits, (4) to be derived solely from the efforts of makes an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with the "it requires a transaction, contract, or scheme whereby a person (1)

others.

respondents herein wherein investors are promised a monthly return of thirty- five percent (35%) is within the definition of an investment contract, which Applying the Howey Test in this case, the investment scheme of

are securities under the SRC to wit:

Any person may invest as low as Php 5,000.00 to become . Investment of Money -

an Investor-Partner of herein respondents as evidenced by their Certificates of Agreement for Money-Back Guarantee and/or Certificate of Deposits', which is in the nature of an investment contract.

: Common Enterprise There is investment of money to ALMAMICOOP, which is not registered with the CDA, ALMAMICO, with SEC

CDA Registration No. 9520-101200000004492311, which Registration No. CS20195123010 and ALAMCCO, with

the following reasons: for all intents and purposes, is the SAME ENTITY due to

11 Memorandum of ALAMCCO, Exhibit "1" Motion for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, Annexes "J-6" and "J-7" 1o Motion for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, Annex "A".

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 10 of 14

1) They all operate in the same business address at

Purok Maharlika, Poblacion (Alabel), Saranggani Province. 2) ALMAMICO Corporation share the same directors

and cooperators as ALAMCCO, as shown by their

3) All three entities use the same catchphrase of registration documents. 'Alabel-Maasim" and business scheme of offering

investments to the public, as shown by the Facebook screenshots and videos presented by the EIPD. 4) Finally, the Facebook screenshots of the EIPD also

shows that respondents interchangeably use the name ALMAMICO and ALAMCCO to its members and investors.

:Expectation of Profits - The investor-partners of respondents herein part with their money with the expectation of a monthly return of thirty- five percent (35%).

: Primarily from the Efforts of Others -

return of thirty-five percent (35%) without any effort but solely from the managerial and entrepreneurial efforts of The investor-partners of respondents herein earn a monthly

herein respondents.

With all the elements of an investment contract under the Howey Test present in this case, respondents cannot now deny that they are engaged in offering/selling securities in the form of investment contracts. Further, the presence of herein respondents in Facebook and Youtube as evinced by the screenshots and videos presented by the EIPD shows that they are also using social media as a medium to advertise their investment scheme

considered solicitation and public offering of securities.12 This is to the public and not just to their own members. Said acts are already

12 Section 3.1.17 of the 2015 Implementing Rules and Regulation of the Securities Regulation Code which states that: Or unsolicited. Any solicitation or presentation of securities for sale through any of the "3.1.17. Public offering is any offering of securities to the public or to anyone, whether solicited following modes shall be presumed to be a public offering:

3.1.17.1. Publication in any newspaper, magazine or printed reading material which is distributed within the Philippines;

3.1.17.2. Presentation in any public or commercial place;

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO), Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 11 of 14

strengthened by the fact the CDA found respondents ALMAMICO Cooperative and ALAMCCO offering said investment to non-members in violation of their Articles of Cooperation and the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008 and thus, the issuance of an Advisory against ALAMCCO and subsequently, a CDO against both ALMAMICO Cooperative and ALAMCCO.

Finally, respondents' failure to register said investment contracts and to secure a Permit to Offer/Sell Securities to the Public from this Commission as evinced by the Negative Certification presented by the EIPD places them in direct violation of Sec. 8, 12 and 26 of the SRC, which warrants the issuance of a CDO against them.

III. The issuance of the subject CDO by the SEC is not in violation of the 1 July 2019 Status Quo Ante Order issued by RTC Branch 59 of General Santos City in Spl. Civil Case No. 19-809

In its Motion Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order and Memorandum, respondent ALAMCCO alleges that the issuance of the CDO against them was in violation of the Status Quo Ante Order dated 1 July 2019, which was issued by the Branch 59 of the RTC- General Santos in Spl. Civil Case No. 19-809.

This Commission disagrees.

Section 5 of Rule 58 of the Rules of Court states that:

"Section5. Preliminary injunctionnotgranted without

without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. If it shall appear from facts shown by affidavits or by the verified application that great or irreparable injury would result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice, the court to which notice; exception. - No preliminary injunction shall be granted

communications,informationcommunication communication; or 3.1.17.3.Advertisement or announcement technology or any other forms of radio, television, telephone, electronic

place or to prospective purchasers through the postal system, information communication technology and other means 3.1.17.4. Distribution and/or making available flyers, brochures or any offering material in a public or commercial of information distribution."

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 12 of 14

the application for preliminary injunction was made, may issue a temporary restraining order to be effective only for a period of twenty (20) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined, except as herein provided. Within the said twenty-day period, the court must order said party or person to show cause, at a specified time and place, why the injunction should not be granted, determine within the same period whether or not the preliminary injunction shall be granted, and accordingly issue the corresponding order. (Bar Matter No. 803, 17 February 1998)

However, and subject to the provisions of the preceding sections, if the court or the presiding judge of a single sala court may issue ex parte a documents to be served therewith. Thereafter, within the aforesaid seventy-two (72) hours, the judge before whom the case is pending shall matter is of extreme urgency and the applicant will suffer grave injustice and irreparable injury, the executive judge of a multiple-sala temporary restraining order effective for only seventy-two (72) hours conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order shall be extended until the application for preliminary injunction can be heard. In no case shall the total period of effectivity of the temporary restraining order exceed twenty (20) days, including the original seventy-two hours provided herein. from issuance but he shall immediately comply with the provisions of the next preceding section as to service of summons and the

XXXXX

temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) days from order issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof, the service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining. effective until further orders." (Emphasis supplied)

Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Rosario E. Cahambing vs Victor Espinosa and Juana Ang, G.R. No. 215807, 25 January 2017 ruled "that the sole object of a preliminary injunction is to maintain the status quo until the merits can be heard."

and desist orders and temporary restraining orders are issued to direct the person to refrain from continuing the acts being restrained. As such, the same Based on the foregoing provision and doctrine, injunction orders, cease

is prospective in nature and does not undo the acts that have already been done previous to its issuance. Further, said orders only bind the person and entity sought to be enjoined only upon the actual service of said order to the 1atter.

ruled that the same are in the nature of temporary restraining orders, which With respect to Status Quo Ante Orders, the Supreme Court has already

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO). Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 13 of 14

has a life span of not more than twenty (20) days in case the court does not issue a writ of preliminary injunction.13 Thus, Status Quo Ante Orders are also governed by rules under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

Applying the foregoing doctrines in this case, this Commission emphasizes on the fact that the Cease and Desist Order against respondents were issued by this Commission on 4 June 2019. Further, the same was posted and served to respondents on 3 July 2019. During said dates, the Commission has not been served with any Status Quo Ante Order issued against it. In fact. it was only on 4 July 2019 when this Commission received, through private

Regional Trial Court of General Santos City in Spl. Civil Case No. 19-809.14 courier, the Status Quo Ante Order dated 1 July 2019 of Branch 59 of the

Since the issuance of the CDO and its subsequent implementation preceded the receipt of said Status Quo Ante Order, there is nothing for this Commission to undo or unwind but rather it is duty-bound to maintain the CDO against herein respondents.

And further considering that respondents now seek affirmative relief from this Commission, it is constrained to resolve this case, as follows.

CONCLUSION

Taking into consideration all the foregoing circumstances, this

form of investment contracts without securing a permit from this Commission. Commission finds herein respondents offering securities to the public in the

in violation of Sections 8 and 12 of the SRC. Finally, respondents failed tol

13 Nilo L. Dojillo vs Comelec, G.R. No. 166542, 25 July 2006. March 2007 where the Supreme Court ruled that: 14 Re: Complaint against Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals., A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA, 20

TRO by the Court of Appeals after the expiration of the sixty -ay period is a patent "the nature of a temporary restraining order", Thus, the decretal portion of the quo order, he must have intended those meaning; he cannot impute a "directory" meaning to confuse the parties. x x x On the other hand, he ought to know that a judicial declaration that it has expired is necessary, and, the lower courts. including the Court of Appeals, have no discretion to extend the same. A second nullity.(Emphasis supplied) that precedes the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of the filing of the case"1 However, the Supreme Court has ruled that a status quo ante order has justice must be playing with words. When a judge or justice uses technical or legal extendible period of sixty days and automatically expired on the sixtieth day. No "temporarily enjoined' from implementing the assailed writ of execution. Respondent terms with a well-defined mean 'Technically, status quo is "defined as the last actual, peaceful and uncontested status resolutic tempo of July 24, 2001, specifically ordered that the public respondent is training order cannot exist indefinitely: it has a lifetime of a g. such as a temporary restraining order or a status

In the Matter of Alabel-Maasim Mining Corp. (ALMAMICO) Alabel-Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative and/or Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative (ALAMCCO) SEC Admin. Case No. 06-19-053 Page 14 of 14

show any proof to warrant the lifting of the CDO issued against them. As such. herein respondents must be immediately restrained in order to protect the investing public from being defrauded and gravely damaged.

Cautelam To Lift Issued Cease and Desist Order of respondent ALAMCCO WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion Ex Abundanti Ad

is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The CDO dated 4 June 2019 issued against Alabel Maasim Small Scale Mining Cooperative, Alabel Maasim Small Scale Mining Corporation and Alabel Maasim Credit Cooperative is MADE PERMANENT.

SO ORDERED.

Pasay City, 17 September 2019

*EMILIO B. AQUINO

Chairperson

NWMX EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG * JAVEY PAUL D. FRANCISCO

Commissioner Commissioner

KLSU fIL

KELVIN LESTER K.LEE Commissioner KARI/0 S BELLO Commissioner

*On Official Business