PINEDA v.

LANTIN
Nov. 30, 1962|REGALA, J. | INJUNCTION AS PROVISIONAL
REMEDY
Digester: Africa, Mabel
SUMMARY: Minority stockholders of Bacolod Murcia Milling filed
a complaint with the SEC against the said company and its
president, Araneta. The SEC Commissioner Pineda ordered the
investigation of the case. Araneta and Bacolod Murcia moved to
quash and discontinue the proceedings and investigation due to an
alleged lack of jurisdiction of the SEC (due to non-promulgation of
SECs rules). The SEC Comm denied the motion. Hence, Araneta
and Bacolod Murcia filed a Special Civil Action for Injunction
before the CFI. The SEC Comm and the investigators moved to
dismiss the special civil action on the ground of impropriety, since
the CFI has no jurisdiction over SEC orders. CFI Judge Lantin
denied. The SEC filed with the SEC a petition for certiorari
attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Lantin.
The SC agreed with the SEC. The CFI has no jurisdiction over the
case of prohibition because the same is lodged EXCLUSIVELY with
the SC.
DOCTRINE: Under the ROC, the CFI has no jurisdiction to grant
injunctive reliefs against the SEC. That power is lodged
EXCLUSIVELY with the SC.
1. Sec. 1, Rule 43 within 30 days from notice of an order or
decision issued by the Public Service Commission or the SEC, any
party aggrieved may file with the SC a petition for review
2. Sec. 35, Commonwealth Act 83 (creating and setting forth the
powers of the SEC) Any person aggrieved by an order issued by
the Commission... may obtain a review of such order in the SC
The above provisions are very clear. Whenever a party is aggrieved
by or disagrees with an order or ruling of the SEC, his remedy is to
come to the SC on petition for review. He is not permitted to seek
relief from courts of general jurisdiction.
FACTS:

In a letter addressed to the SEC, Tersa Cuaycong and Apeles

Lopez, stockholders of Bacolod-Murcia, complained of various
actions of the said corporation that were in violation of its
articles of incorporation, the Corporation Code, and the SEC
rules, all prejudicial to its minor stockholders.

Petitioner Pineda, the SEC Commissioner, ordered the

investigation of the company, with the other petitioners
assigned as part of his investigation team.
The issue here began when the petitioners addressed a
subpoena duces tecum to respondent Araneta and the trasurer
and secretary of B-M.
o The respondents questioned the subpoena in a Petition to
Reconsider Order and to Set Aside Subpoena Duces
Tecum, saying that the subpoena has to be issued in
accordance with the rules adopted by the SEC, but it had
no rules yet that could guide the subpoena. SEC DENIED
the petition.
o They then filed a Motion to Quash and Discontinue Entire
Proceedings, reiterating the same arguments as their
previous petition. They also imputed conspiracy and
oppressive behavior on the part of the stockholders. SEC
DENIED the petition.
Aggrieved, the respondents filed a special civil action for
prohibition with respondent Judge Lantin of the Manila CFI.
o The petitioners then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that
the CFI does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter
of appeal from/review of an SEC decision-- such lies with
the Supreme Court under Rule 43 and CA 83 as amended.
CFI DENIED the motion to dismiss. They filed an MR,
which was also denied. Though an answer was submitted
at this point, the petitioners filed this present petition for
certiorari and prohibition.

RULING: Injunction granted.

Whether or not the CFI may issue injunctive reliefs against
the SEC. NO, as appellate jurisdiction is lodged entirely with the
SC, effectively making the SEC a court on the same level as the
CFI.
RATIO:
Rule 43.1 of the then-Rules of Court places review of SEC
decisions to the Supreme Court. Such is reiterated in CA 83 as
amended (law creating the SEC).
The relief sought, seeking a halt to the investigation because of
alleged lack of jurisdiction, was in effect a review of the SEC
decision/order-- where the SEC denied their motion to quash
and discontinue. Certainly, that would be under Rule 43, as the

Court has jurisdiction over all decisions and orders, even

incidental orders.

The fact that the order is interlocutory does not mean such
cannot be appealed in such a manner, as appeal may be had if
the appeal is grounded upon lack of jurisdiction.