SEC EB Case No. 10-10-220MERIDIAN, INC., Appellant, v. MENANDRO TABLANTE, Appellee.

Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC Republic of the Phillppines Deparment of Finance

MERIDIAN SECURITIES,INC Respondent-Appellant,

SEC En Banc Case No.10-10-220 Promulgated:27 September2022

MENANDRO TABLANTE Complainant-Appellee

DECISION

Meridian Securities,Inc.(Meridian Securities) assailing the Resolution affirmed the Decision of the Market Regulation Division MRD). the dispositive portion of which reads: dated 27 October 2020(the Assailed Resolutionissued by the Market Integrity Board of the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE-MIB).which Before this Commission is the Memorandum of Appeali filed by

RESOLVED That the finding by the Market Regulation Division MRDof a violation by Meridian Securities,Inc.of

a b SRC Rule 30.2-1-B-vi-c,for failure by said trading participant to promptly, and the sanction of a "written reprimand" for such Violation be, as it is hereby affirmed. SRC Rule 49.2-10 in relation to Article VI,Section 18 of the MRD upon the latter's demand,fully paid securities to which the latter was entitled and, ensure that client assets are accounted for properly and Rules for failure to deliver to its client Mr.Menardo Tablante

140 shares of Manulife Finance Corporation from the time of its erroneous sale on 13 March 2000 to the present,be,as it is hereby likewise affirmed. RESOLVED Further, that the directive of the MRD to the trading client,Mr. Menardo Tablante,within fifteen 15 business days from notice of the resolution cash and stock dividends accruing to the latter's Participant Meridian Securities,Inc. to account for and deliver to its

RESOLVED Finally,That the appeal taken therefrom by the said trading participant be, as it is hereby denied

MIB ResNo.30Sericof 2010 Dated Z7 October 2010

Taante y Merdian Securtie In SC C10-1020 Page 2of14 Decision

RELEVANT FACTS

alternative, directing Meridian Securities to pay Mr Tablante the total the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 223 RTC Br.223 praying that an order be issued directing Meridian Securities to immediately return to Mr.Tablante the 140 Manulife shares,or,in the amount of PesosOne Hundred Forty Thousand (PhP140,000.00 representing the total value of the said shares as of January 2001 plus by Mr.Menardo Tablante (Mr.Tablante)against Meridian Securities with legalinterest. The case stemmed from a Complaint for specific performance filed

Mr.Tablante,the dispositive portion of which,in part,reads On 19 December2005 RTC Br.223 rendered a Decisionin favor of

rendered in favor of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to WHEREFORE,on the basis of the foregoing judgment is hereby

( Immediately return the One Hundred Forty 140 Manulife shares to the Plaintiff andin the alternative,pay the Plaintiff the amount of sixty-eight thousand four hundred fifty-three pesos P68.453.00 Philippine Currency,representing its total value as of March 2000 plus legal interest from the time of demand until fully paid. xxx

modified the RTC Br.223 Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: issued a Decision dated 21 February 2008(the"CA Decisionwhich On appeal,the Special Second Division of the Court of Appeals (CA

The CA Decision became final and executory on 5 August 2009.6 assalled Decision dated December 19.2005.of the RTC of Quezon City Branch 223,in Civil Case No.Q-01-43283 s hereby MODIFIED ordering or in the alternative, to pay the amount of P645.00 per share or P90.300.00,plus 6% legal interest from the date of first demand on June 5.2000 until fully paid The rest of the decision stands. is PARTLY GRANTED while that of the defendant is DENIED The the defendant to return the 140 Manulife shares of stock to the plaintiff WHEREFORE,premises considered,the appeal of the plaintiff

AnnexCof the Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal Docketed as Civil Case No.Q-01-43283.See Annex Bof the Memorandum on Appel

See Anxof the Peition for Certiorari which was attached to the Manifestation with Compliance dated7 December 2020

Tabtante va Merd nc1010 Page 3of4 Decision

Decision,Meridian Securities returned to Mr.Tablante his 140 Manulife shares. In compliance with the RTC Decision as modified by the CA

4 May 2010 to Meridian Securities (copy furnished the PSE) demanding from the latter the payment of P66,304.00 as cash dividends.as well as the delivery of 140 Manulife shares as stock dividends accruing from his original 140 Manulife shares. On the strength of the CA Decision,Mr.Tablante sent a letter dated

of origin i.e.the RTC of Quezon City and not the MRD,as the same relates to the proper execution of a final and executory judgment of the said Meridian Securities filed on 11 May 2010 a Letter-Answerwhere it argued that the demand of Mr.Tablante should he addressed by the court court. In compliance with the Letter dated5 May 2010 issued by the MRD

vi-c for its failure to ensure that client's assets are accounted for. On account thereof PSE-MRD imposed upon Meridian Securities a penalty of Shares reckoned from March 2001 (the time of the erroneous sale until the present. finding Meridian Securities to have violated SRC Rule 49.2-10 in relation to Article VI,Section 18 of the MRD Rules for its failure to deliver to Mr Tablante upon demand the fully paid securities,and SRC Rule 30.2-1-B written reprimand,and directed the latter to account for and deliver to Mr. Tablante the cash and stock dividends accruing to his 140 Manulife On 3 August 2010.the MRD issued a Decisionthe"MRD Decision

a decision of a regular court that has attained finalitynor to modify such decision. Market Integrity Board (MIB) praying for the reversal and setting-aside of the MRD Decision. Meridian Securities argued that MRD has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a complaint that sough the execution of On 11 August 2010.Meridian Securities filed an Appeal with the

denying the appeal of Meridian Securities and affirming in toto the MRD Decision. On 24 September 2010.the MIB issued the Assailed Resolution

Assailed Resolution. Meridian Securities forthwith elevated to this Commission the

This was treated by MRD as a Complaint and was docketed as PSE-PED-IC-2012-002 AnnexAthe Notice of Appeal with Memorandum on Appeal

Tablat Mridian SecuritiIn N1010220 Page 4 of 14 Deciaion

Tablante filed with the RTC Br.223 a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution With Prayer for Accounting. On 16 August 2010. or during the pendency of the appeal, Mr.

prayer for accounting on the basis of the doctrine of immutability of judgments which prohibitsthe alteration/modification of judgments that has attained finality.The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC Br.223 in an Order dated 25 March 201111(collectively.the"RTC Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution, but denied Mr. Tablante's Orders. In an Order dated 8 October 201010.the RTC Br.223 granted the

implication of what was adjudged.3 excess of jurisdiction Mr. Tablante essentially argued that an order sustaining the accounting does not amount to an amendment/alteration of the final and executory CA Decision and does not violate the doctrine of immutability of judgments accounting is merely a logical and necessary consequence of the judgment rendered and a necessary allegedly issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or Certiorari praying for the reversal of the RTC Orders as the same were On 11 July 2011.Mr.Tablante filed with the CA a Petition for

subsequently filed by Mr. Tablante was likewise denied by the CA in a Petition for Certiorari. Motion for Reconsideration which was Resolution promulgated on 28 July2005 On 27 November 2014,the CA issued a Decision dismissing the

September 2015 with the Supreme Court (SC).which was docketed as 2020.Mr. Tablante informed this Commission that the Petition for G.R.No.220084.In his Manifestation with Compliance dated 7 December Review is currently pending with the SC. Accordingly.Mr.Tablante filed a Petition for Review dated 2

also attached thereto and furnished the Commission copies of the a Petition for Review dated 02 September 2015.b) Decision dated 27 contained in the Manifestation with Compliance (with Order dated 23 November 2020)filed by Mr.Tablante on 21 December 2020.where he The information relating to the filing of the Petition for Review is

See Annex Cof the Petition for Review filed with the Supreme Court [docketed as G.RNo.220084 See Annex Cof the Petiton for Certiorari dated 20 June 2011 filed with the CA docketed as CA GR No.120067,which was attached as AnnexC to the Petition for Review fled with the Supreme Court See AnnexAof the Petition for Certiorari AnnexBof the Petition for Review with the S See Annex of the Petition for Certiorari AnnexCof the Petition for Reviw with the SC which is ttached as AnnexAto the Manifesttion with Compliance dnted 7 December 2020 Pars37 and 40 of the Petition for Certiorari dated29 June 2011 (docketed as G.R.Na220084)

Tablae Meridian Securities Itc SCEn cC N1010220 Page S af 14 Dediion

by the RTCBr.223,and(dOrder dated25 March 2011 issued by the RTC November2014 issued by the CA.c)Order dated 08 October2010 issued Br.223 ISSUES

A Did the PSB-MIB commit reversible error in sustaining the vi-c(collectively.the"Relevant Rules) imposition of the penalty of reprimand on the basis of a finding that Meridian Securities violated SRC Rule 49.2-10 in relation to Article VI,Section 18 of the MRD Rules,and isRC Rule 30.2-1-B-

(B directing Meridian Securities to account for and deliver to Mr. Did the PSE-MIB commit reversible error in affirming MRD and Tablante, cash and stock dividends accruing to the latter's 140 Manulife shares from the time of its erroneous sale in 13 March 2000?

RULING

The Appeal is impressed with merit.

noted and emphasized that the issue on whether Mr.Tablante is entitled to cash and stock dividends on his 140 Manulife shares is still pending with the Supreme Court (SC) which this Commission duly considered in deciding this case,it should be At the outset,and to provide a proper context on the grounds/bases

both the RTC Br. 223 and the CA5 previously denied, applying the which Mr Tablante filed with the SC specifically prayed for the issuance of an order"directing the accounting and return of the dividends accruing from the 140 Manulife shares of stock14 adjudicated in his favor which The foregoing finds support in the fact that the Petition for Review

unalterable.The judgment may no longer be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law,and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. While thene are recognized exreptions -gthe correction of clerical errors, the so-called nunc pro tnc entries which cause no prejudice to any party,void judgments and whenever circumstance transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution unjust and inequitablenone of these See Prayer No.3 page 18 of the Petition for Review Settled is the rule that a judgment that has become final and executory is immutahle and exceptions apply to the present case.

In the case at bar no pronouncement was ever made regarding the grant of an award forthe return of the accruing dividends The right to accrual of dividends on the subject Manulife shares was not alleged in petitioner's complaint before the RTC thus private respondent was not able to present evidence to

Taae ridan SecritieInc SEC E Bnc CN100 Page 6 o Decision

therein that the issuance of an order directing the accounting and delivery of cash and stock dividends on his 140 Manulife shares does not amount to an amendment or alteration of the decision that has attained finality because the same is merely a logical and necessary consequence of a judgment rendered and a necessary implication of what was adjudged.16 doctrine of finality of judgments.Mr. Tablante maintained and reiterated

specifically demanded from Meridian Securities for the payment of arguing that as the owner of the original shares,he is entitled to the fruits which Mr. Tablante filed with the MRD nonetheless shows that he P66,304.00 as cash dividends,as well as the delivery of 140 Manulife shares as stock dividends accruing from his original 140 Manulife shares. thereof. This notwithstanding. the Letter-Compliant dated 4 May 2010

in its Decision which considered the foregoing as the main issue in the sustained not only Mr.Tablante's ownership of the 140 Manulife shares but also his entitlement to the payment of P66,304.00 as cash dividends, as well as the delivery of additional 140 Manulife shares as stock dividends accruing therefrom.We quote the relevant findings of the MRD (which was affirmed by the PSE-MIB in the Assailed Resolution Complaint of Mr. Tablante: Relative thereto.it is equally notable that the Decision of MRD

Tablante,did not expressly provide for the dividends accruing,or which whichalthough ordering the return of his 140 Manulife shares to Mr In his letter-complaint,Mr. Tablante brought for proper action the refusal of MSI to pay cash and stock dividends accruing to his 140 RTC of Quezon Cityas modified by the Court of Appeals (CA"). Manulife shares.He claims that he is entitled to the said cash and stock dividends by reason of a decision rendered bv the RegionalTrial Court may have accrued.to the said shares.

XXX XXX XXX

indeed entitled to the cash and stock dividends that he claims. The major issue to be resolved, then,is whether Mr.Tablante is

XXx XXX XXX

case of Cojuanco v.Sandiganbayan,where the Court ruled that even if the The same issue has already been resolved by the Supreme Court in the

disprove that it was not obligated to return the same The parties and even the trial court were confined to the averments of the complaint and the answer and the issues foined by the major pleadingssee pages 7 and 8 of the Decision dated 27 November 2014 issued by the CA) Pars46and 49page 10 of the Petition for Reviewdated 2 September 2015

Tain Nndin SecurtiIn SECancCaseNo.0-220 Page 7 ol4 Dedsion

dispositive portion of the Court's decision did not order the accounting delivery and remittance of stock cash and property dividends, the plaintiff was still entitled to the same. xxx

XXX XX X

and ordinary acceptation of the term "dividendas "a payment to the stockholders of a corporation as a return upon their investment"17 (Emphasis supplied) return of shares of stock, it also impliedly orders the return of the stock, cash and property dividends accruing thereto.This fact need not be stated in the dispositive portion of the decision, or even in the decision itself. It would be absurd to award the shares and not include the dividends accruing thereto,as the right thereto is an incident of ownership of stock.This flows from the technical sense The import of this decision is clear. When the court orders the

as basis for concluding and holding that Meridian Securities violated the Relevant Rules,and justifying the imposition of the penalty of reprimand, and the directive to pay the cash and stock dividends,to wit: Both the MRD and the PSE-MIB used the fore-quoted ratiocination

securities to which he is entitled, including the stock dividends assets under Mr. Tablante's account.all the stock and cash portion ofthe court's order.this problem would never have arisen. Since it has,however,opted to instead return the 140 Manulife shares to Mr.Tablante,retaining him as a client,it then gained the corresponding responsibility to comply with Article VI,Section 18 of the MRD Rules to deliver upon Mr.Tablante's demand, the which accrued thereto.Moreover,MSI should have also complied with SRC Rule 30.2-1-B-vi-c and included in their accounting of the dividends to which he is entitled including those that accrued to his 140 Manulife shares(Emphasis supplied) "It bears noting that had MSl opted to comply with the alternative

return of the stock, cash,and property dividends accruing thereto, and Relevant Rules because the latter failed to comply with the demand of Mr otherwise, it is the position of both the MRD and PSE-MIB that the Decision of the RTC Br.223, as modified by the CA Decision which ordered the return of Mr. Tablante's 140 Manulife shares or,in the alternative,to pay its monetary equivalent, includes by implicationthe determination and eventually found that Meridian Securities violated the Tablante for accounting and return of the cash and stock dividends that have allegedly accrued to his original 140 Manulife shares.The PSE-MIB agreed withand affirmed this finding in its Assailed Resolution.Stated Prescinding from the foregoing, it appears that the MRD made a

See pages 1-3 of the Decision dated 3August Z010mof the MRD

TMed Scurn SEC anc CNo 100 Page Bof 14 Dedisi

constituted a violation of the Relevant Rules the failure of Meridian Securities to return/pay the said dividends

MB This Commission cannot accede to the finding and decision of PSE

cautioned both MRD and PSE-MIB,even without an injunctive order from the higher court,from further determining and even ruling (granting) on the Complaint of Mr. Tablante which.on its face,clearly sought the issuance of an order directing Meridian Securities to pay and deliver the matter involves/relates to the implementation of the final and executory decision which is currently pending with the Supreme Court primary jurisdiction over complaints alleging violation of the Relevant Rules.this Commission holds that in the instant case,the principle of judicial courtesy is applicable,and should have prompted and/or cash and stock dividends accruing to his 140 Manulife shares, as this While it is true that the MRD (and the PSE-MIB on appeal) has

High Court, as well as ethical and practical considerations demand that the CA waits for the final determination of the case to avoid mooting that matter that was pending with the former,thus Court in the case of Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs The Honorable Court of Appealsi where it was held that due respect to the The principle of judicial courtesy was first applied by the Supreme

considerations should have prompted the appellate court to wait for the final determination of the petition before taking cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was before this court As we have ruled in the case of People v Court of Appeals,101 and denying the latter's motion to reconsider such,order,upon learning of the petition,the appellate court should have refrained from ruling thereon because its jurisdiction was necessarily limited upon the SCRA 450,463 and 466) Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate Appellate Court to prevent it from taking any action with regard to its resolutions respectively granting respondents motion to expunge from the records the petitioner's motion to discuss filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questioning the propriety of the issuance of the above-mentioned resolutions. Due respect for the Supreme Court and practical and ethical

exercised by them in the Court of Appeals' is clearly this Tribunal and respondent Court, which is totally .-Thirdly. the statement that whatever rights the movants were allowed to exercise in the Supreme Court could be misplaced.It implies concurrence of jurisdiction between

GNo50054 Aiut17988

Tabtante v Meridin SecrineIn Cn anc CNo110-220 Page9af14 Decisinn

within the reglementary period from finality of a Decision or Resolutiona party can simultaneously file a Petition for Review hefore this Tribunal as well as a Motion for interpretation does havoc to the rules on orderly procedure A party should not be allowed to pursue simultancous remedies in two different forums. unacceptable. It would lead to the absurd situation where Reconsideration beforerespondentCourtThis

XXXXXXXXX

called to such development It paid no heed Although now it is claimed that had it knownit would have stopped action or desisted from taking any at any stage in which the fourth of discretion when it passed upon private respondents Motion for Reconsideration after this Tribunal had already denied private respondentspetition for Review on Certiorari, as well as the reconsideration thereof. The attention of respondent Courtas explained heretofore,was (4h motion for reconsideration was found is intended to keep a tribunal within the limits of its jurisdiction As explained above, respondent court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction and with grave abuse Fourth Motion for Reconsideration considering that its judgment of conviction had already become final And what is even more glaring respondent Court acted on said Fourth We find the foregoing without merit. The Writ of certlorari

with grave abuse of or in excess of jurisdiction when it issued the resolutions dated March 27 and April 5,1979 correcting its earlier erroneous orders which were already before us.Emphasis supplied) Applying the foregoing precedent.we rule that the appellate court acted

result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court.thus principle of judicial courtesy should apply if there is a strong probability that the issues before the higher court would be rendered moot as a In the case of Oca vs Custodio19,the Supreme Court emphasized that

court. The purpose is to avoid mooting the matter raised in the higher court. It is exercised as a matter of respect and for practical proceedings although there is no injunction or an order from a higher ludicial courtesy is exercised by suspending a lower court's considerations.

However,this principle applies only if the continuation of the lower court's proceedings will render moot the issue raised in the higher court."

*GR.No.199825, [uly26,2017]

Tablane s Medan SecuritieInc SECn anc eN10-10-220 Page 10 of 14 Decision

Tablante's entitlement to the cash and stock dividends that have accrued to the 140 Manulife shares.The PSE-MIB has also directed Meridian in the Assailed Resolution effectively passed upon the issue on Mr Securities to pay and give to Mr.Tablante such cash and stock dividends and proceeded to penalize Meridian Securities for its failure to do so. In the instant case,by affirmingthe MRD Decision,the PSE-MIB has

for Review of Mr.Tablante which the Supreme Court is yet to rule upon In factone of the main arguments presented therein by Mr Tablante in support of his claim that he is entitled to the cash and stock dividends that have accrued to the 140 Manulife shares,is the applicability of the case of Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan.2 Given the pendency of the Petition for Review,the applicability of the Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan case to the instant case is for the Supreme Court,and not the PSE-MIB, to determine. The foregoing,however,is the main issue presented in the Petition

Until the Supreme Court rules with finality that Mr. Tablante is entitled to the cash and stock dividends,the determination on whether Meridian has violated the Relevant Rules in relation to such cash and stock dividends which PSE-MIB used as basis for its decision is baseless/premature.

in ruling that the case of Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan is applicableand in directing the payment and/or delivery of the cash and stock dividends On account thereof.this Commission holds that the act of PSE-MIB

to Mr.Tablante on the basis thereof constitutes a clear violation of the abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.This is the necessary consequence of an act that is found to be violative of the principle of judicial courtesy.Hence.in the case of Calavag v.Sulpicio principle of judicial courtesy issue/matter presented in the Petition for Review and denied the Supreme Court the courtesy and respect due to it. Consequently. the Assailed Order should be struck down for having been issued with grave becauseiteffectively mootedthe

Regional Trial Court which was issued in violation of this principle,thus LinesInc1the Supreme Court nullified and set-aside the Order of the

Villanueva should have been more circumspect in the exercise of his discretion and recused himself from further presiding over the said civil cases to remove any doubt on his neutrality.While Section 7 of Rule 65 provides the general rule that the mere pendency of a "On this score,it bears mentioning that although iudicial courtesy is indeedunotimandatorv.under suchcircumstancesJudge

See Par62 to 69 of the Petition for Review G.RNo.221864,September14,2016

Tahiamt Mertian Secure Inc 5EEn Banc CasoNo1010220 Pag Decision

Special civil actlon for certiorari does not stay the proceedings in the lower court in the absence of a writ of preliminary injunction or TRO this Appeals explained: Court in Eternal GardensMemorialParkCourt of

jurisdiction was necessarily limited upon the filing of a petition for certiorari with this Court questloning the resolutions.Duerespect for the Supreme Court determination of the petition before taking.cognizance of the case and trying to render moot exactly what was from taking any action with regard to its resolutions respectively granting respondents motion to expunge denying the latter's motion to reconsider such order upon learning of the petition,the appellate court should haverefrained from ruling thereon because propriety of the issuance of the above-mentioned and practical and ethical considerations should have prompted the_appellate court to wait for the final before this court[Emphasis and underscoring supplied] Although this Court did not issue any restraining order against the Intermediate Appellate Court to prevent it from the records the petitioner's motion to dismiss and its

case to the Clerk of Court of Manila Despite this he acted on the motion Villanueva had yet to receive the CA decision ordering his inhihition when he handed down his decision on the civil cases. he should not have entertained the subsequent motion for execution pending appealand recused himseif fromthe case as he alreadyreceived the September 212015 CA Decision and December 18 2015 Executive Judge even directed him to turn over the entire records of the for execution pending appeal. Resolution ordering his inhibition.Tt bears to reiterate that the Thus, while petitioners were correct in asserting that Judge

it is with more reason that he should respect and comply with a further acting on the case In the same way that a lower court should readily.complv with the provisionalorders ofa.higher.court.then higher court's final disposition of the case on the merits. injunction was issued by the CA enjoining Judge Villanueva from Petitioners cannot argue that no TRO or writ of preliminary

the ruling of the CA ordering Judge Villanueva to recuse himself from the trial and his overzealousness to have his decision executed despite an impartial judge was clearly violated. Thus,the Court will let stand the case. clear directive from the CA,the Court finds that Sulpicio's right to have Taking into consideration the actions of Judge Villanueva during

2016 Order of Judge Villanueva granting petitioners'motion of execution pending appeal should be annulled To let it be is to Clearly issued with grave abuse of discretion.the May 11

Tune Medn Socurt nt S8CnancCNo.16-10-220 Page 12 or 4 Decixion

sanction and reward disrespect of a higher tribunal.(Emhasis supplied)

With Prayer for Accounting,which is now the subject of the Petition for Review pending with the Supreme Court dismissible on the ground of forum shopping,arguing that the Complaint of Mr.Tablante filed with the PSE-MIB raised the same issue,and sought the same relief as that in the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution Finally, Meridian Securities maintains that the instant case is

authority of the MRD and PSE-MIB.22 Thus,Mr.Tablante maintained that the PSE-MIB was correct in imposing the administrative penalties upon correct in holding that he did not violate the rule on forum shopping because the primary relief that he sought was merely the imposition of disciplinary sanction against Meridian Securities which is within the Meridian Securities on the basis of the finding of violation of the Relevant Rules. Mr. Tablante,on the other hand, argues that the PSE-MIB was

The Commission finds for Meridian Securities

system was clearly explained by the Supreme Court in Municipality of Taguig v.Court of Appealsthus The concept of forum shopping which is abhorred by our legal

was indeed forum shopping Tablante with the MRD.and the Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution With Prayer for Accounting.in relation to his Petition for Review which is currently pending with the Supreme Court,will readily show that there the process creating the possibility of conflicting decisions being courts and parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts rendered by the different fora upon the same issues.Emphasis In the instant case,a careful review of the Complaint filed by Mr "Forum shopping exists when,as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum,a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari in another, or when he institutes two or more that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition What is truly importantto considerin determining and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same or related supplied) actions or proceedingsgrounded on the same cause,on the gamble whether forum shopping exists or not is the vexation caused the causesand/orgrantthe same or substantiallythe same reliefs in

See Par.41 of the Reply Memorandum dated 12 November 2010 of Mr.Tablante GR Na.142619.September 13,2005].506 PHILS67-582

Tuhlante y Mendan Securit Inc SBCn ncCa No.10-10-220 Page 13 of 14 Decision

and demand was clear In his Letter-Complaint filed with the MRD.Mr.Tablante's position

not mentioned in the Order,you are not required to pay dividends. You will note that the order explicitly required you to return to me 140 shares or its equivalent amount in peso at the time of demand plus 6% Tlament the very literal and simplistic interpretation you gave to the RTC/CA OrderYou claim that since the payment of dividends was legal interest until fully paid.

XXX XXX XX

to reiterate my demand for payment on 15 days upon receipt of Yourrefusal to pay my rightful cash and stock dividends forces me this letter.xxx(Emphasis supplled)

thereof in the Petition for Review which is currently pending with the Supreme Court,to wit We find this very same relief (and the same arguments in support

respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court: WHEREFOREthe foregoingpremises consideredit Is XXX XXXXXX

adjudicated in favor of Petitioner.(Emphasis supplied) dividends accruing from the 140 Manulife shares of stock 3. ISSUE an order directing the accounting and return of the

direct Meridian Securities to account for, pay, and return the cash and stock dividends that have accrued to his 140 Manulife shares,which is allegedly entitled to on the basis of the doctrine in Cojuangco vs however,was triggered by his act of filing the Complaint with MRD and the Petition for Review with the SC considering that both sought essentially the same remedy. dividends that have accrued to his 140 Manulife shares. The violation Tablante sought from both MRD (and PSE-MIB)and the Supreme Court after he was denied by the RTC Br.223 and the CA) a ruling that will Sandiganbayan.Mr.Tablante did this after both the RTC Br.223 and the CA earlier issued a ruling that denied his entitlement to the cash and stock The violation of the rule against forum shopping is glaring. Mr

applicable.MRD and PSE-MIB forthwith used this legal conclusion in to pay and deliver the cash and stock dividends that have accrued to his of Mr. Tablante) that the case of Cojuangco vs Sandiganbayan is already granted Mr Tablante's prayer and directed Meridian Securities 140 Manulife shares after ruling (apparently agreeing with the position The MRD which was affirmed by the PSE-MIB have,in fact

Ta Man Sca,I En CNo10-10-220 Page 14 of 4 Decisinn

to account for and deliver to Mr Tablante the cash and stock dividends that have accrued to his 140 Manulife shares. finding that Meridian Securities violated the Relevant Rules after it failed

stock dividends that have accrued to his 140 Manulife shares Br.223 and the CA,and dismisses Mr Tablante's Petition for Review? More importantly is the SC now precluded from dismissing his Petition for Review considering that the PSE-MIB has,in the Assalled Resolution. already ruled that he is entitled to the payment and deliver the cash and What happens then if the SC affirms the position of both the RTC

this Commission (whom he now requests to affirm the Assailed the Complaint with the MRD and the Petition for Review with the SC has vexed them.as well as the party litigants,on the ground that Mr Tablante has created the possibility of a conflicting decisions being rendered by Resolution and the SC who is still to rule on his Petition for Review On account thereof.it is not difficult to see how the filing of both

NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE GRANTED.MIB Resolution No.30,Series of 2010 affirming the 03 August 201Z Decision of the PSE-MRD in PSE-PED-IC-2012-002 is hereby WHEREFORE,premises considered,the instant Appeal is hereby

SO ORDERED

Makati City.Philippines

EMILIOB.AQUINO Chairperson

JAVEY PAUL D.FRANCISCO Commissioner KELIN LESTER K.LEE Commissioner

KARLO S.BELLO Commissioner MCJILL BRYANT T.FERNANDEZ Commissioner