SEC En Banc Case No. 09-06-89 Petition for Review filed by PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION (hereinafter 'PHC') on 07 September 2006, appealing the Order, dated 22 August 2006, of the then Coporation Finance Department.

B Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance 36 Securities and Exchange Commission SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City

IN THE MATTER OF PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION,

SEC En Banc Case No. 09-06-89 For: Review of CFD's Order

PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION Petitioner.

DECISION

This refers to the Petition for Review, filed by Philcomsat Holdings Corporation (hereinafter PHC') on 07 September 2006, appealing the Order', dated 22 August 2006, of the then Corporation Finance Department (CFD')2 which directed the PHC to allow the Department to conduct an audit of its 2003 and 20043 books and accounts on 08 September 2006.

I The Order declared that:

"Finally, the authority of the Commission to require the issuer further information under Section 15 of the Securities Regulation Code applies if at any time, the information contained in the registration statement together with its financial reports, which were filed and approved by the Commission, has become misleading, incorrect, inadequate or incomplete in any material respect. Since there has been allegation for a legitimate stockholder that the company has been illegally dissipating its assets, the Commission must determine the veracity of such claim and verify the accuracy of the company's representation of its financial condition considering that Philcomsat Holdings Corporation is a listed company.

Registration of the company's securities being valid and subsisting, the same may be suspended even if the company is not currently selling or offering for sale such securities should there be a finding that the company has violated the Securities Regulation Code. Xxx

In view thereof, PHC is hereby directed to allow the said inspection subject of the matter on September 8, 2006."

2 Now Corporate Governance & Finance Department.

3 CFD's letter to PHC dated April 27, 2006 states that, "[u]pon review, the audited financial statements filed by your company show that the documents do not fully disclose and explain the specific reasons for the substantial increase in expenses from years 2003 to 2004. Hence, there is a need to further examine other financial information and records of your company such as vouchers, disbursement books and other relevant documents."

PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Sec En Banc Case No. 09-06-89 Decision

Page 2 of 4

PHC did not allow the CFD access to its books and accounts. Instead, it filed the instant Petition arguing that:

1. The Commission must defer examination of PHC's books and records since

2. 3 Section 15 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC) does not apply to PHC. The intended examination violates PHC's right to due process. it is subjudice.

4 The Commission is being used by certain individuals for their own personal

interest.

In its Comment, dated September 20, 2006, the CFD avers that:

1. It has the authority to inspect and examine the corporate books and records

of PHD despite the attendant circumstances. There was no violation of due process. 3 Section 15 of the SRC applies to the petitioner. 4 It is impartial and it will not allow itself to be partisan to any of the personal

interest of the parties concerned.

The CFD also maintains, in its Comment, that it's 22 August 2006 Order emanated from a letter of Jose Ma. Ozamist requesting the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of the Commission to issue a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) against PHC, its directors and officers, to enjoin them from making any withdrawals from any and all PHC's accounts and placements which would result in the dissipation of PHC's assets until the completion of PHC's Annual Stockholders' Meeting. The OGC, in its Memorandum to the CFD3, referred Mr. Ozamis' letter for CFD's appropriate action. Thus, CFD's action was "to determine through the intended audit, if there is a violation of the SRC and its Implementing Rules and Regulations to warrant the issuance of a CDO." 6

While this Petition was pending, the Commission received, on 27 April 2009, a letter? from Katrina Ponce-Enrile, representing herself as the chairwoman of PHC, requesting the Commission to defer its Order revoking the registration of its securities and alleging that:

1. Since 11 December 2007, PHC has been under the control of a different group of

directors/stockholders. The Bildner & Ponce-Enrile group was able to take control of PHC from the Brodett, Lokim & Locsin group that refused the audit and filed the subject case.

The Commission was able to conduct the audit after the PHC's external auditor,

Virgilio Santos, was compelled to submit his working papers.

3. PHC appeared for hearing on 20 April 2009 before the CFD regarding the matter of revoking the registration of PHC's securities for violations of the Securities

Regulation Code.

Dated February 27, 2006, Annex "A", Comment. 4 Dated 21 September 2005. Annex "H", CFD's Comment to the Petition. 7 Dated on 27 April 2009 (erroneously dated 27 April 2008) Page 8, last paragraph, Comment

PHILCOMSAT HOLDINGS CORPORATION

Sec En Banc Case No. 09-06-89 Page 4 of 4 Decision

"The Court DIRECTS the Locsin-PCGG Group to render an accounting of all the funds and other assets received from the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, Philippine Holdings Corporation and Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation since September 1, 2004, and to return such funds to the respective corporations within thirty days from the finality of this decision."

Moreover, the fact that the matter of lifting of the Order of Suspension of Registration of Securities18 issued by the then CFD is still pending with the MSRD shows that the Commission does not cede its visitorial powers over PHC. In fact, the Commission already assessed PHC a penalty of PhP 5,402,100.00 for non-compliance with the reportorial requirements. In the instant case, the Order appealed from was issued by the then CFD to determine whether there is a ground to suspend PHC's right to sell and offer for sale securities pending further investigation.

Accordingly, the foregoing indicate that the instant Appeal has been rendered moot and academic by the subsequent events that transpired during the pendency of the case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED for being moot.

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, 23 April 2015

TERESITA J. HERBOSA

Chairperson

nuo

MANUE Commissioner TO B. GAITE ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner

Ne las [omes 6. Ybu EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG Commissioner BIAS[JAMES G. VITERBO Commissioner

18 Commission's Order, dated August 7, 2008, suspending the registration of PHC's securities due to its violation of the SRC Rules 17.1 (1)(A)(i) and (ii) for non-filing of 2006 and 2007 Annual Report, as well first three Quarterly Reports for 2007.

Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

36 Securities and Exchange Commission SEC Building, EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City

CELIA S. BENICO

Petitioner.

- versus - SEC CASE NO. 04-96-5322

MA. SALOME I. UNIDAD MA.TERESA U. SAGUINSIN and INTERNAL AUDITOR OF UNISHOPPE SUPERMARKET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

Respondents.

23 March 2015

TO:

ORCEO DEFANTE DELA CRUZ CUDIAMAT REGINO & DELA CRUZ LAW OFFICES Counsel for the Respondents-Appellants Ma. Salome L. Unidad and Counsel for the Petitioner-Appellee ATTY. CITADEL LINAG Central District, Diliman. 129-D Malakas Street. Quezon City Ma. Teresa U. Saguinsin Suite 319 Fairtrade Commercial Center Ortigas Avenue Extension, Cainta, Rizal

GREETINGS:

Please take notice that on 23 April 2015, a DECISION was issued in the above- entitled case, the original of which is now on file with the Commission.

Mandaluyong City, Philippines.

For the Commission En Banc:

C. A.GERARD M. LUKBAN

Commission Secretary

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

CELIA S. BENICO, Petitioner,

- versus - SEC CASE NO. 04-96-5322 MA. SALOME I. UNIDAD. UNISHOPPE SUPERMARKET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, MA. TERESA U. SAGUINSIN and INTERNAL AUDITOR OF Respondents.

DECISION

is hereby treated as an appeal to the En Banc, praying: Respondents, last October 1, 2004 which, in the interest of substantial justice For decision is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein

respondents and the .undersigned guilty for indirect contempt be reverse(d) and reconsider(ed) for (being) patently illegal and void for it was promulgated in excess and/or lack of jurisdiction. .. that the Decision dated 14 September 2004 insofar as it found

its initial filing on April 29, 1996 to the present, it behooves this Commission to revisit the facts that led to the filing of this complaint to obviate any further needless proceedings after the promulgation of this Resolution. Considering the length of time that this case has been pending, from

I

1996. The Answer to Respondents' Counterclaim was filed on July 11, Compulsory Counterclaim and Affirmative Defenses, was filed on June 13. 1996. The Petition was filed on April 29, 1996. The Answer, with

A

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 2 of 15

September 13, 1999 by the Securities Investigation and Clearing Department, and are as follows: The facts of the case are summarized in the Decision promulgated on

consuming her March 5 to 19, 1996 vacation leave (Annex "Y"). U. Saguinsin are stockholders and members of the Board of Directors of Unishoppe Supermarket Management Corp. (Unishoppe for brevity), which is a corporation duly organized and registered with this Commission (Exhs. "A" to "A- 7," and "B"). in addition, respondent Salome I. Unidad is the President of Unishoppe while respondent Ma. Teresa U. Saguinsin is the Treasurer. Besides being a stockholder and director of Unishoppe, petitioner also worked as storekeeper (Exhs. "C" to "C-1") until she ceased reporting to her work just after Petitioner as well as respondents Ma. Salome I. Unidad and Ma. Teresa

appeared to have been notified (about) and attended all board meetings of Unishoppe (Annexes "A" to "K" of the Answer). Prior to her severance as storekeeper of Unishoppe, however, petitioner

in its operation and thus it maintained a total surplus profit of P1,214,136.00, as of December 31, 1996 (Exhs. "1" to "1-C-1). Likewise as admitted in the (A)nswer, Unishoppe is financially successful

Corporate Secretary and Accountant Miss Vina Pundamera for accounting and copying company records and minutes of meeting. (TSN, June 17, 1997, pp. 29 to 32, and July 9, 1997, pp. 10 to 15) Petitioner testified that she made repeated oral demands (of) the

requiring ... an explanation about petitioner's severance from Unishoppe as storekeeper and respondents' failure to heed the oral demand for accounting (Annex "Z"). On March 23, 1996, petitioner's counsel also sent to respondents a letter

Statements with the Commission since its registration in 1992. (Exhs. "D") Evidence also show that Unishoppe has not filed any Financial

Investigation and Clearing Department, disposed of the case, as follows: After hearing, Hearing Officer Paulino Q. Gallegos, Securities

last taxable year and a profit and loss statement for said taxable year, showing in with the By-(L)aws; and (3) to pay P30,000.00 in attorney's fees. ordering respondents (1) to immediately furnish petitioner with Unishoppe's most reasonable detail its assets and liabilities and the result of its operation; (2) to allow petitioner to inspect and copy corporate books and records in accordance recent financial statement, which shall include a balance sheet as of the end of the WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered

and for apparent transaression of the corond n moreover requested to take the appropriate action against respondents and Unishope for their failure to comply with the Commission's reportorial requirements The Supervision and Monitoring Department of this Commission is

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 3 of 15

No pronouncement as to costs.

herein respondents as follows: this case for accounting and for failure to perform the same, to be held liable for On June 7, 2001, the Commission en banc decided the appeal of appellee. The respondents are real parties in interest being the members of the therefore, liable to perform the duties required of the corporation by the law, as in damages. In the case of the award for damages and attorney's fees, the hearing officer did not err in not awarding the same to the appellants as petitioner had a valid cause of action against the respondents-appellants which petitioner brought before this Commission for resolution. board and officers of Unishoppe Supermarket Corporation, and they are, After a careful review of this case, we rule in favor of the petitioner-

Accordingly, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.

as follows: On October 5, 2001, petitioner filed a Motion for Execution alleging

SEC AC No. 696 filed by the respondents herein, AFFIRMED in toto the Decision Hearing Officer, on September 13, 1999, x x x; rendered by the then Securities Investigation and Clearing Department, through its N In an Order dated June 7, 2001, the Honorable Commission, in

appellants, through their counsel, Atty. Reynante Orceo, received a copy of the aforesaid Order on July 20, 2001; 2 The records of the Commission show that respondent(s)-

subject Order of the Honorable Commission, executory. appeal of the said Order has been made or perfected. Hence, rendering the 3. The reglementary period to appeal had already lapsed and no

behalf of the Commission en banc, granted petitioner's Motion for Execution. On November 8, 2001, The Office of the General Counsel, for and on

On November 23, 2001, a Writ of Execution was issued.

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENT/OBJECTION WITH MOTION TO CITE RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT, where she alleged as follows: On March 12, 2002, petitioner filed a pleading, entitled

1 Earlier herein petitioner has filed a written "Comment and

Obiections to Sheriff'c Retuirn Irith

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 4 of 15

to the dispositive portion of the decision dated September 13, 1999 when the refusing petitioner to inspect and copy its Corporate books and records, pursuant execution, present and prospective, said respondent be cited for contempt in same was being served by the assigned Sheriff; 2. So as to prevent respondent from making a mockery of the

on the written Financial Statement of the Unishoppe Supermarket Corporation submitted to him on January 15, 2002. 3 As gleaned from the Sheriff's Return, Sheriff Ibuna merely relied

then, prayed for the following relief, as follows:

as well as herein supplemental pleading with prayer to cite respondent in contempt. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed to grant petitioner's earlier motion

Other just and equitable relief(s) are prayed for.

behalf of the Commission en banc, granted petitioner's motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution. On February 20, 2003, The Office of the General Counsel, for and on

On even date, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued.

TO CITE RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT WITH PRAYER TO REVOKE CERTIFICATE/ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. On September 22, 2003, petitioner filed a motion, entitled MOTION

OPPOSITION/COMMENT Contempt). On December (Tothe Motionto Cite Respondents for 19 2003 respondents filed their

RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT WITH PRAYERTO CERTIFICATE/ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION. On February 26, 2004, petitioner filed her MOTION TO CITE REVOKE

resolved the Motions for Contempt, as follows: On September 14, 2004, General Counsel Vernette G. Umali-Paco

contempt with prayer to revoke certificatel articles of incorporation of Unishoppe Supermarket Management Corporation for failure to comply with a lawful order of the Commission. For consideration of the Commission is the Motion to Cite respondents in

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 5 of 15

this Commission under SEC Registration Number AS92001447 on January I, 1992. Among its incorporators is the herein petitioner.

stockholder of the corporation, filed a Petition for Complete Accounting and Damages against respondents. On April 29, 1996, Petitioner Celia S. Benico, also an incorporator and

Department (SiCD) rendered a decision in favor of petitioner ordering respondents comply with this Commission's reportorial requirements and for apparent transgression of the second paragraph of Sec. 45 of the Corporation Code on (1) to immediately furnish petitioner with Unishoppe's most recent financial operations; (2) to allow petitioner to inspect and copy corporate books and records in accordance with the by-laws, and (3) to pay P30,000.00 in attorney's fees. The Supervision and Monitoring Department was likewise requested to take the appropriate action against the respondents and Unishoppe for their failure to declaration of dividends. statement, which shall include a balance sheet as of the end of the last taxable year, showing in reasonable detail its assets and liabilities and the result of its On September 13, 1999, the then Securities Investigation and Clearing

2001 The decision was affirmed in toto by the Commission En Banc on June 7.

RTC Branch 70, Binangonan, Rizal. above-entitled case, addressed to the Sheriff of the Office of the Clerk of Court, On February 19, 2003, the Commission issued a Writ of Execution in the

X X X

conference. In a Motion to set the case for hearing, dated October 23, 2003, counsel for the respondents, Atty. Reynante B. Orceo manifested that he had al Conference and thus, was unable to attend. show cause why they should not be cited for contempt for violation of the lawful orders of the Commission. None of the respondents showed up for the said previous commitment on the exact date and time as the October 22, 2003 A conference was scheduled on October 22, 2003 for the respondents to

Conference, setting the date for December 8, 2003. x x x On November 5, 2003, the Commission issued another Notice of

X X X

thirty (30) day period within which to submit position paper on why respondents During the Conference, counsel for the respondents was given a non-extendible should not be cited for contempt for failure to comnlv with a laufii arre Cause Order in the above-entitled case. Both parties attended or were represented in the meeting. Counsel for Unishoppe, Atty. Orceo manifested that the respondents will not be able to comply with the Writ of Execution allegedly because the external auditor had disposed of the financial statements of the corporation. He even represented that respondents are in no position to comply other records but rather it is the external auditor which has custody over the same with the order because they do not have custody of the financial statements and Finally, on April 26, 2004, a last Conference was held relative to the Show

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 6 of 15

X X X

Petitioners' Motion To Cite For Contempt rendered the same defective and the constituted "forum-shopping." is of no. moment considering that the instant contempt order was commenced under the first paragraph of Section 4 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, which provides that: 2004, that the lack of verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the subsequent filing of the second motion did not cure the "defect" but rather The allegations of the respondents, in their position paper, dated May 21.

any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show for indirect contempt may be initiated motu propio by the Cause why he should not be punished for contempt. court against which the contempt was committed by order or "Sec. 4 How Proceedings commenced.--Proceedings

contempt" under the first paragraph of the above section of the Rules of Court which do not require verification and a certification of non-forum shopping. November 5, 2003 and March 26, 2004 would qualify as "any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for The Show Cause Orders issued by the Commission on October 8, 2003.

Further, counsel for USMC admitted during the hearing/conference that the corporation has closed shop. (FS) since 1999. Under the existing rules, non-filing of required reports such as the GIS and the FS is ground for revocation of the certificate of registration. (GIS) since its incorporation in 1992. Neither has it filed any Financial Statement Finally, we note that USMC has not filed any General Information Sheet

counsel Atty. Reynante B. Orceo are adjudged GUILTY OF INDIRECT GRANTED.Accordingly, respondent directors and officers of Unishoppe Salome I. Unidad, Ma, Gina B. Panganiban and Ma. Vina F. Fundamera and their FINED the amount of 210,000.00 each. Respondents are hereby requested to file their Compliance within ten (10) days from receipt of this Order. Supermarket Management Corporation namely: Ma. Teresa U. Saguinsin, Ma. CONTEMPT for violation of the lawful orders of the Commission, and are hereby WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant motion is

Management Corporation is hereby REVOKED for failure to comply with reportorial requirements. Further, the Certificate of registration of Unishoppe Supermarket

SO ORDERED.

I

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma." Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 7 of 15

We reverse.

pertinent portions of the Position Paper that respondents filed in compliance (with) the order of the Office of the General Counsel to submit its position paper in connection with the motion to cite respondents in contempt with prayer to revoke the certificate/articles of incorporation,' thus: For a much better analysis of the issues, it is best to quote the

respondents in contempt with prayer to revoke certificate/articles of incorporation. conference for the said motion on December 8, 2003 at ten o'clock in the morning.l In a notice of conference dated November 5, 2003, this Honorable Office set the 1. On September 25, 2003, undersigned received a motion to cite

2 On 19 December 2003, undersigned filed his opposition/comment to the said motion. Later on 03 March 2004, undersigned received again a motion to cite respondents in contempt with prayer to revoke certificate/articles of incorporation, the alle gations of which are substantially the same as the first motion filed by the petitioner that the undersigned received on 25 September 2003.

requirement provided by the Rules of Court in filing an initiatory pleading. For emphasized (therein), the opposition/comment filed by the undersigned to the first motion alleged, among others, the following: motion points out its defectiveness particularly the lack of compliance with the 3. A reading of the undersigned's opposition/comment to the first

has no certification on non-forum shopping. contempt reveals that the same was not verified and worst it "A reading of the motion to cite respondent in

certification on non-forum shopping is a ground for the is herein quoted as follows: dismissal of the complaint and the party and his counsel who did not comply with the requirement are liable for either direct or indirect contempt. Pertinent provision of the rules Further, the same rules provide that the absence of

involving the same oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore "The plaintiff or principal party shall certify under commenced ISSU es in any court, tribunal or quasi- any action filed any claim

judicial agency and, other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim of the present status thereof: the best of his knowlec and a complete statement (c if he should ae.nosu

therea learn that the same similar action or claim within five (5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. has beer filedor ispending, he shall report that fact

Failure to comply with the foregoina reauirements

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 8 of 15

dismissal of the case without prejudice, uniess otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of counsel undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of and criminal actions shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct as a cause court, without prejudice to a false certification ornon-c clearly for constitute administrative thecorrespondingadministrative th willful compliance with any of the 6 sar and ctions contempt,as wel the party or deliberate (Rule 7, forum his

underscoring, ours); page 2, opposition/comment Section 5 1997 New RulesofCivilProcedure

4 Thus, in accordance with the foregoing rules the first motion the defect as provided for by the rules. Moreover, it cannot be just coursed should be dismissed.. The subsequent filing of the second motion would not cure through the mere filing of a motion for what the rules said is a "verified petition"

filed a second motion alleging the same matters as in the first motion. This is clearly forum-shopping for the petitioner is then hoping to have a favorable response for the two motions she had filed. 5. In an attempt to cure the fatality of the first motion, petitioner then

docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders and decision." (Rule 71, Section 4, 1997 New Rules of Civil Procedure) the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing 6. Finally, the rule provides that the petition for contempt shall be

indirect contempt against quasi-judicial entities, states very clearly, to wit: Section 12, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, referring to

entities, bodies or agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, or shall have provided by law, this Rule shall apply to contempt committed against persons, granted to them by law to punish for contempt. The Regional Trial Court of the (Emphasis supplied) suppletory effect to such rules as they may have adopted pursuant to authority place wherein the contempt has been committed shall have jurisdiction over such charges as may be filed therefor. (n) Section 12. Contempt against quasi-judicial entities.--Unless otherwise

Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, has been affirmed in Robosa vs. National Labor Relations Commission (First Division), G.R. No. 176085, February 8, 2012, which states, as follows: That the Commission is exempted from the coverage of Section 12.

indirect contempt charges against the respondents before the NLRC. NLRC to initiate indirect contempt proceedings before the trial court. This mode is to be observed only when there is no law granting them contempt powers. As is is empowered or has jurisdiction to hold the offending party or parties in direct or indirect contempt. The petitioners, therefore, have not improperly brought the clear under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, the labor arbiter or the Commission Rule 71 of the Rules of Court does not require the labor arbiter or the

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 9 of 15

(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/feb2012/gr_176085_2012.html; p. 3 [print preview])

No. 8799), provides in its Section 5.1, thus: The Law involved herein, "The Securities Regulation Code" (R.A.

commission shall act with transparency and shall have the powers and functions provided by this code, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, the Corporation Code, the Pursuant thereto the Commission shall have, among others, the following Investment Houses law, the Financing Company Act and other existing laws. powers and functions: Section 5. Powers and Functions of the Commission.--5.1:The

X X X

) Punish for the contempt of the Commission, both direct PROVISIONS OF and. penalties prescribed by THE and indirect, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PERTINENT RULES OF COURT

X X X

(Emphasis supplied)

respect to the procedure, which petitioner should have followed when she charged respondents with indirect contempt? Just what are the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court with

manner in which herein petitioner who has charged respondents with an indirect contempt should have proceeded, as follows: Branch 7, Tacloban City, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2335 March 18, 2013, the Valmores-Salinas v. Judge Crisologo S. Bitas, Regional Trial Court, The Honorable Supreme Court has explained, in Anna Liza

Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court explicitly states:

he should not be punished for contempt. indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced.--Proceedings for

contempt charges arose out of or are related to a nrincinal astion compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full IN ALL OTHER CASES, charges for indirect

3 Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 10 of 15

contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately. unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the

(Emphasis supplied)

(https://docs.google.com/viewer?uri=http%3A//sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/20 concerned" was emphasized in the original; all caps and all bold "IN ALL OTHER CASES" emphasis is supplied) 13/march2013/RTJ-12-2335.pdf: page 4; "charges for indirect contempt x x x court

times. In the case at bar, petitioner cited respondents for contempt three (3)

reference and convenience of the Commission, the scanned upper half of page 1 of said first motion is as follows: contempt, which was filed on March 12, 2002, was not the subject of the September 14, 2004 Decision issued by then General Counsel Vernette G. Umali-Paco. While the same will not be discussed hereunder, for the easy It should be stated that the first motion to cite respondents for

SECURITTES AND EXCHANGF COMMISSION SEC BIDG., FDSA,GREENHILLS REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES MANDALUYONG, CITY

CELIA S. HENICO, Tetitioner,

MA. SALOME L. UNNIDAD, ET.AL. vessus WITH MOTION TO CITE RESPONDENT SUPPIEMENTAL COMMENT/ OBJECTION IN CONTPAPT SEC. 0ASE NO. 04-96-5322 02MAR F FCEVLO

Comes Now, petitioner by counsel and unto the Honorable C

upper half of page l of the pleading is as follows: The second motion was filed on September 22, 2003. The scanned

E Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page I1 of 15

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION SEC BUILDING, EDSA, GREENHILLS Office of the General Counsel Republic of the Philippines Mandaluyong City 0 S CELIA S. BENICO. Petitioner,

MA. SALOME L. UNIDAD,ET. AL., X VS - Respondents. X SEC CASE NO. 04-96-5322

CERTIFICATE/ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT WITH PRAYER TO REVOKE MOTION TO CITE

Comes Now, petitioner by counsel unto the Honorable Court respectfully alleges:

half of page 1 of the pleading is as follows: The third motion was filed on February 26, 2004. The scanned upper

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Office ef the General Counsel SEC BUILDING, Republie of the Philippines Mandaiuyeng City EDSA, GREENNILLS 1 4F E SC. E'

MA. SALOME L. UNIDAD, ET. AL. CELIA S. BENICO. Petitioner. Respondents SEC.CASE NO.04-965322 T G S.** NEEL

CERTIFICATEYARTICLES OF INCORPORATION RESPONDENTS WITM PRAYER TO REVOKE MOTION TO CITE IN CONTEMPT

the same docket number, as shown by the above computer scans of the upper half of page l of said motions. and February 26, 2004) to cite for contempt filed by herein petitioner have been docketed separately as verified petitions. The two motions still have The record does not show that the two motions (September 22, 2003

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 12 of 15

against forum-shopping. This glaring defect was pointed out by respondents in their Opposition/Comment filed December 19, 2003. The motion filed September 22, 2003 does NOT have a certification

Trade, Inc. v. Isidto, G.R. No. 181051, July 5, 2010: As stated by the Honorable Supreme Court in Mandaue Galleon

pleadings. The subsequent compliance with the requirement does not excuse a party's failure to comply therewith in the first instance. In those certificate of non-forum shopping, it found special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict application of the Circular clearly unjustified or inequitable. In this case, however, the petitioners offered no valid justification preview]; emphasis supplied) cases where the Court excused non-compliance with the requirement to submit a for their failure to comply with the Circular (http:/www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_181051_2010.html; p. 3 [print The filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory in initiatory

Verification, with its paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 being that required for the certification against forum-shopping -- petitioner's counsel having been reminded by respondents' counsel that the same is mandatory. No explanation was given by petitioner why the certification was not attached to said motion filed September 22, 2003. This is the reason why the motion filed February 26, 2004 contains a

G.R. No. 172590, January 7, 2013: As reiterated by the Honorable Supreme Court in Anderson v. Ho,

it imposes has been constantly underscored by this Court. One of these procedural orderliness. procedural requirements is the certificate of non-forum shopping which, time and again, has been declared as basic, necessary and mandatory for The need to abide by the Rules of Court and the procedural requirements

relevant portions of which are as follows: June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 35), the Court reiterated the guidelines respecting non- compliance with or submission of a defective certificate of non-forum shopping, the In Vda. De Formoso v. Philippine National Bank (G.R. No. 154704,

4) As to certification against forum shopping, non- presence of "special circumstances or compelling reasons". or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of "substantial compliance" or compliance therewith or a defect therein, x x x, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission

X X X X

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 13 of 15

preview]; print preview) (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_172590_2013.html; p. 3 [print

pleadings" CONTEMPLATES, among other things, the payment of docket and other lawful fees so that the verified petition will have its docket number of the main complaint, from whence the indirect contempt incident arose. own docket number, which docket number will be different from the The phrase "full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory

Non-Forum Shopping, the most important _provision of the Rules payment of docket and other lawful fees -- WAS NOT COMPLIED petitioner may be said to have "cured" -- in said February 26, 2004 motion which contains the allegations needed to comply with the Certification of WITH -- the non-submission of a Verification in the September 22, 2003 motion, Even if the Commission were to be very liberal about the issue that

It is well settled that:

G.R. Nos. 79937-38, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 274, 285) (Fedman Development Corporation v. Agcaoili, G.R. No. 165025, August 31. 2011;http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_165025_2011.html; payment of the prescribed docket fee are the acts that vest a trial court with jurisdiction over the claim. (Sun Insurance Office, Ltd., (SIOL) vs. Asuncion, [print preview]; emphasis supplied) The filing of the complaint or other initiatory pleading AND the

motion) of what may be accepted as a "substantially complied-with verified petition (under the Commission's power to relax the rules on technicality), to cite respondents in contempt of the Commission may not be acted upon by the Commission due to the inescapable fact that NO DOCKET FEES HAD BEEN PAID by petitioner. In other words, this initiatory pleading (i.e., the February 26, 2004

promulgated on June 7, 2001. on September 13, 1999 and the Decision of the Commission en banc certified true copy of the Decision by the Honorable Hearing Officer Paulino Q. Gallegos, Securities Investigation and Clearing Department, promulgated Further, each of the motions that were filed do not have attached a

attached certified true copies of the following: Furthermore, each of the motions that were filed do not likewise have

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarket Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad, Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporation Page 14 of 15

Defenses (filed June 13, 1996); and Answer, with Compulsory Counterclaim and Affirmative

1996). Answer to Respondents' Counterclaim (filed July 11.

initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned [the may be heard and decided together with the main complaint, upon the the charge for indirect contempt that is initiated by one of the parties to a case MUST BE "commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing Commission, in this instance]." discretion of the hearing officer, the first and foremost requirement is that While the verified petition charging a party with indirect contempt

152611, August 5, 2003, explains the need for a verified petition, as follows: Land Bank of The Philippines v. Severino Listana, Sr., G.R. No.

Regalado, Vice-Chairman of the Revision of the Rules of Court Committee that drafted the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explains this requirement: The requirement of a verified petition is mandatory. Justice Florenz D.

proceedings. While such proceeding has been classified as a practice, tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file initiatory pleadings, which is now required in the second paragraph of this amended section. theproper special civil action under the former Rules, the heterogeneous a mere motion without paying any docket or lawful fees therefor and without complying with the requirements for 1. This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm procedure for commencing contempt

X X X

initiated motu proprio by order of ot a formal charge by the second paragraph of this section. offended court, ALL CHARGES shall be commenced by a therefor and shall be disposed of in accordance with the verified petition with full compliance with the requirements Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings

(http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/aug2003/gr_152611_2003.html; p.3,if printed; emphasis supplied)

It is clear that the two motions to cit.

Saguinsin and Internal Auditor of Unishoppe Supermarke Celia S. Benico vs. Ma. Salome I. Unidad. Ma. Teresa U. (SEC Case No. 04-96-5322) Management Corporatic Page 15 of 15

indirect contempt may be deemed not to have been filed at all EVEN THOUGH the Commission has the Iegal authority to punish herein respondents for indirect contempt of the Commission.

entertained said motions in the first place. Simply put, there was no need for the Commission to have

Judgment

Rcconsideration filed by herein Respondents on October 1, 2004, by VACATING and SETTING ASIDE the Order promulgated September 14, 2004 by then General Counsel Vernette G. Umali-Paco. WHEREFORE, the Commission GRANTS the Motion for

SO ORDERED.

City of Mandaluyong, Philippines.

April 23, 2015.

T C

TERESITA J. HERBOSA

Chairperson

Oanu huy.de ANTONIETA F.IBE MANUEL B.GAITE

Commissioner Commissioner

Bu as lamls G. IAMES G.VITERBO V+0n$0 EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG 1WX

Commissioner Commissioner