SEC En Banc Case No. 03-15-366TRADITION FINANCIAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. rep. by JAIME F. VILLALON

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

In the matter of:

TRADITION FINANCIAL SERVICES PHILIPPINES, INC. rep.by JAIME F.VILLALON Appellant,

-versus - SEC En Banc Case No.03-15-366

MARKETS AND SECURITIES rep. by DIR. VICENTE GRACIANO P. FELIZMENIO, JR., REGULATION DEPARTMENT, Appellee.

RESOLUTION

Philippines, Inc. (Appellant), assailing the Resolution dated 18 March 2015 (Questioned Resolution") issued by the Commission's Markets and Securities Regulation Department ("MSRD"). Before the Commission is an Appeal filed by Tradition Financial Services

Circular No.16, Series of 2004, otherwise known as the Risk Based Capital Adequacy Rules (RBCA Rules) from 2008 until the issuance of the Questioned Resolution. The dispositive portion of the Questioned Resolution partly reads: In the Questioned Resolution, Appellant is penalized for violating SEC Memorandum

hereby SUSPENDED for at least five (5) business days from receipt of this Order in Government Securities" and "Permit to Operate as Voice Broker in November 2008, respectively, in favor of Tradition Financial Services, Inc., are and until such time that the company is able to comply with the RCBA Rules Government Securities issued by the Commission on 02 October 2008 and 24 requirements. In view of the foregoing, the "Certificate of Registration as Voice Broker

(Php1,000,000.00) Pesos, in cash, cashier's/manager's check payable to the Commission not later than March 25, 2015. Further, the company is hereby directed to pay the penalty of One Million

Later, on 26 March 2015, Appellant filed its Appeal Memorandum on the Questioned same day, Appellant, through counsel, filed with the MSRD a Very Urgent Motion for Suspension of the Implementation of the Order Dated 18 March 2015 Issued by MSRD. Resolution with the Commission En Banc, through the Office of the General Counsel of the Commission. On 27 March 2015, an Order was issued by the Commission Secretary, The Questioned Resolution was received by Appellant on 19 March 2015. On the

SEC EB Case No. 03-15-366 Page 2 of 3 directing the MSRD to file its Reply Memorandum. The MSRD submitted its Reply Memorandum on 6 April 2015.

Appellant's corporation's registration and permit as voice broker in government securities, the dispositive portion of which partly reads: On 27 March 2015, the MSRD issued a Letter-Resolution lifting the suspension of

24 March 2015 in the amount of Php200,000,000.00 is hereby APPROVED. In view of the foregoing, the company's Subordinated Loan Agreement dated

Government Securities" is hereby LIFTED. Voice Broker in Government Securities" and "Permit to Operate as Voice Broker in Further, the suspension of the company's "Certificate of Registration as

Appeal. In this Urgent Motion, Appellant informed the Commission of the following, inter alia: On 15 April 2015, Appellant filed an Urgent Motion to Withdraw Memorandum on

2. Appellant's payment of the penalty of One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00 on 25 1. Appellant's submission to the MSRD the following documents in compliance with the 3. RBCA Rules: March 2015, per Official Receipt Number 1253812. Appellant's submission of documents to increase its authorized capital stock from a.Subordinated Loan Agreement between Appellant and Tradition-Asia Pacific b. Proof of telegraphic transfer of the amount of Php13,572,910.00 from d. Capital build-up plan and computation of Appellant corporation's compliance Undertaking dated 26 March 2015 executed by Mr. Jaime Villalon and Carlito proprio in the event of violation of the RBCA Rules, particularly with respect Pte Ltd. for the total amount of Two Hundred Million Pesos De Castro, president and Associated Person of the company, respectively, to (P200,000,000.00); Tradition-Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. the effect that they shall ensure the company will cease operations motu to the minimum RBCA Ratio requirement; and with the RBCA requirements.2

4.MSRD's issuance of the 27 March 2015 Letter-Resolution.5 Ninety Five Million Pesos (P95,000,000.00) to One Hundred Ninety Five Million Pesos (P195,000,000.00).4

MSRD lifting the suspension of Appellant corporation's registration and permit as voice broker in government securities. Questioned Resolution to the Commission En Banc, taking into account its submission of the abovementioned documents and payment of the imposed penalty, as well the Order of the Likewise, Appellant has manifested that there is no longer any need to appeal the

2 Appellant's Urgent Motion to Withdraw Memorandum on Appeal filed 15 April 2015, par. 5. 3 Ibid., par. 5. 5 Ibid., par. 7. 6 Ibid., par. 8. 4 Ibid., par. 5. 1 The MSRD admitted of this fact in par. 23 of its Reply-Memorandum.

SEC EB Case No. 03-15-366 Page 3 of 3

defined a moot and academic case or issue as follows: In Osmena III vs. Social Security System of the Philippines, the Supreme Court

justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; or the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness save when, among others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the when the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review.. A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a

of Appellant's permit and license and the Appellant voluntarily paid the penalty. moot. An Order from the Commission directing the reversal of the Questioned Resolution will be of NO PRACTICAL VALUE or USE,since the MSRD already lifted the suspension The MSRD's issuance of the 27 March 2015 Letter-Resolution rendered the Appeal

to resolve the instant Appeal. Appeal, which is deemed a withdrawal of the instant Appeal, and the MSRD's issuance of the 27 March 2015 Resolution, which rendered the instant Appeal moot, it is no longer necessary Considering Appellant's filing of the Urgent Motion to Withdraw Memorandum on

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Mandaluyong City, Philippines; 6 October 2015.

TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson

Ontmaiis RaXu8<he MANUEI EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG 91WwX Commissioner Commissioner ERTO B.GAITE BLAS JAMES G. VITERBO ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner Commissioner

* On Official Business

?G.R. No. 165272, 13 September 2007, 533 SCRA 313, citing Province of Batangas v. Romulo, G.R. No. 152774, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 736, 754; Olanolan v. Comelec, 494 Phil. 749,759 (2005); 8Id. at 327 Paloma v. CA, 461 Phil. 269, 276-277 (2003).