SEC En Banc Case No. 06-16-406 PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF A STATE SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS WITH PROPOSED REHABILITATION PLAN of RUBBERWORLD PHILIPPINES, INC. ROBERTO DY, ARTURO NACPIL, PHILIP R. GO, and WILFREDO L. ORTIZ., Petitioners.

Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance Securities and Excliange Commission In the Matter of: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF A STATE OF SUSPENSION OF PAYMENTS WITH PROPOSED REHABILITATION PLAN of RUBBERWORLD PHILIPPINES, INC. SEC En Banc Case No. 06-16-406 ROBERTO DY, ARTURO NACPIL, PHILIP R. GO, , and WILFREDO L. ORTIZ, Petitioners. X- -X RESOLUTION Before the Commission is a Petition for Review on Certiorari ["Petition") under Rule XII of the 2006 Rules of Procedure of the Commission ("2006 Rules"), filed on 20 June 2016 by the group of Roberto Dy, Arturo Nacpil, Philip Go, and Wilfredo Ortiz ("Petitioners"), which seeks the partial reversal of the Order dated 30 July 2014 ("Assailed Order") of the Special Hearing Panel I (SHP) i n SEC Case No. 11-94-4920 entitled In the Matter of the Petition for Declaration of a State of Suspension of Payments with Proposed Rehabilitation Plan. In said Petition, Petitioners questioned the following findings of the SHP: 1, That the vice presidents of Rubberworld Philippines, Inc. were corporate officers;^ and 2. That the vice presidents of Rubberworld Philippines, Inc. were corporate officers who are considered employees.^ Petitioners aver that none of them were considered as a party-in-interest in SEC Case No. 11-94- 4920 and took notice of the Assailed Order "just recently."^ Further, Petitioners admitted that on 20 April 2016, they learned that the Assailed Order is pending with the Commission En Banc* Before proceeding any further, it should be emphasized that petitions for review on certiorari under Rule XII of the 2006 Rules may be filed only on the following grounds:^ 1. When the Hearing Officer/Panel of the Commission has acted without or i n excess of its jurisdiction; or 2. When the Hearing Officer/Panel of the Commission has acted with grave abuse of discretion and there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It is already established that the office of certiorari is limited to the correction of defects of jurisdiction solely.^ Stated otherwise, the remedy of certiorari is available only when a tribunal in the exercise of its functions, has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and there is no remedy by appeal.'' Where a tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the person, its decision of any question pertaining to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be corrected by certiorari.^ Whenever the petitioner failed to show that there are no adequate remedies in the 1 Paragraph 6 of the Petition. 2 Paragraph 7 of the Petition. 3 Paragraph 3 of the Petition. 4 Paragraph 4 of the Petition. = Rule XII, Section 12-1 of the 2006 Rules, « Eva Cantelang, etal. vs. Rustico Medina, etal, G.R, Nos. L-50752-50830,13 July 1979. 7 Ibid., citing i?e5'a/a vs. Court of First Instance ofBataan, G.R. No. L-781, 29 November 1946. 8 Ibid., citing Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin, G.R. No. L-8692, 20 December 1913. •

In Rei Roberto Dy, et al. ordinary course of law available, and that the respondent tribunal acted i n the premises without jurisdiction or in excess thereof, or with grave abuse of discretion that would render the challenged judgment null and void ab initio, such petition must be dismissed.^ In the case at bar, an appeal is available against the Assailed Order. In fact, the Assailed Order has been the subject of an appeal resolved by the Commission En Banc in a Decision dated 5 May 2016 in SEC En Banc Case Nos. 08-14-340 and 08-14-341. Moreover, nowhere in the Petition did the Petitioners establish that the SHP acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion. Considering this defect in the Petition, a dismissal thereof is proper. Lastly, even assuming that the Petition is an appeal under Rule XI of the 2006 Rules, the same shall be dismissed for being filed out of time. Considering that Petitioners admitted that it had notice of the Assailed Order on 20 April 2016, the Petition is filed outside the fifteen-day period reckoned from notice of the order or decision by the appealing party. As further provided in the 2006 Rules, appeals are dismissible when it is not perfected within the prescribed period.i° Moreover, even Petitioners acknowledge that they were never parties in the proceedings before the SHP, hence, they do not have the personahty to file any appeal against the Assailed Order. Considering the foregoing, a dismissal of the instant Petition is in order. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit. SO ORDERED. Pasay City, Philippines; 8 July 2016. TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson ANTONIETAF. IBE* Commissioner Commissioner EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG Commissioner *0n Leave 5 Ibid. 10 Rule XI, Section 11-5 of the 2006 Rules.