THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 212838. October 5, 2020.]

MAASIN TRADERS LENDING CORPORATION, REPRESENTED

BY ESTER SERVACIO, petitioner, vs. Dr. Gil Rich, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated October 5, 2020, which read, as follows:
"G.R. No. 212838 (Maasin Traders Lending Corporation,
represented by Ester Servacio v. Dr. Gil Rich ) — We resolve this
Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated July 29,
2013 and Resolution 3 dated May 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 04708. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated November 12,
2009 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in SEC Case No. 02-
07-169, which revoked the certificate of registration of Maasin Traders
Lending Corporation (petitioner) on the ground of fraud in its procurement.
Petitioner was incorporated on April 30, 1987 under SEC Registration
No. 0000140346 as a private lending corporation. 5 On September 29, 2003,
the SEC, through its Company Registration and Monitoring Department
(CRMD), revoked petitioner's certificate of registration for non-filing of its
reportorial requirements, particularly its General Information Sheets (GIS)
and Financial Statements (FS) for the years 1997 to 2006. 6 However, in
CRMD's Order 7 dated June 25, 2006, the revocation was set aside after
petitioner updated its reports and paid the corresponding penalty. On July 6,
2006, Dr. Gil Rich (respondent) filed a Motion for Intervention, seeking the
reversal of the Order that lifted the order of revocation. In CRMD's Letter
dated November 6, 2006, the motion was denied inter alia for being filed
after the issuance of judgment or the Order dated June 29, 2006. 8
On January 5, 2007, respondent filed before the SEC a Petition 9 for
revocation of certificate of registration against petitioner on the following
grounds: (1) fraud in procuring its certificate of registration because two out
of its seven incorporators, namely Luisita Rich (Luisita) and/or Gigi Miel
(Gigi), had never contributed in the capitalization or bought shares of stock
for its incorporation; (2) serious misrepresentation and other crimes to the
damage of the general public, including falsification of public documents,
fraud, misrepresentation, and unconscionable interest/penalties/charges; (3)
delinquency in the submission of reportorial requirements; and (4) prior
revocation of certificate of registration resulted in its automatic dissolution
which can no longer be revived. 10
Petitioner, represented by its President Ester L. Servacio (Servacio),
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 filed a Comment/Opposition with Motion to Dismiss. 11 It countered that: (1)
respondent is not a real party in interest because he is neither a client nor a
person with any transaction with the corporation; 12 (2) the alleged fraud in
procuring the certificate of registration is an intra-corporate dispute which
the SEC has no jurisdiction and the same had already prescribed because 20
years had elapsed since the incorporation of the company; 13 and (3) the
corporation never imposed fraudulent and unconscionable interest,
penalties, and surcharges, and this issue falls within the jurisdiction of the
Central Bank of the Philippines. 14 Petitioner asserted that respondent filed
the case after it redeemed the residential land (property) foreclosed by the
latter. Respondent is the half-brother of Estanislao Rich (Estanislao).
Estanislao mortgaged the property to petitioner to secure his loan obligation.
However, the mortgage was not registered. Estanislao mortgaged the same
property to respondent, who was able to register his lien first. Respondent
foreclosed the mortgage and was awarded as the highest bidder during the
auction sale. Within the one-year redemption period, petitioner redeemed
the property. To forestall the redemption, Estanislao and respondent filed
various cases against petitioner. 15
Respondent filed a Reply and Opposition, arguing that a motion to
dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the 2006 SEC Rules of Procedure. 16
With respect to the issue of fraud in the procurement of petitioner's
certificate of registration, the SEC, by way of subpoena, called upon Gigi and
Luisita for a conference. However, Gigi filed a motion to be exempt from the
conference because she was residing in Abgao, Maasin City, Southern Leyte,
which was more than 100 kilometers away from the venue of the hearing.
She also prayed that her mother, Luisita, be exempted from appearing
because the latter was out of the country. The counsel of petitioner and
respondent agreed that the deposition of Gigi would be taken under the
supervision of the Executive Judge of Maasin City. Although, this did not push
through. 17
The SEC directed Gigi to submit a sworn statement narrating her
participation in the incorporation of petitioner. Respondent filed three
motions 18 to ensure that Gigi complies with the order of the SEC. Pending
the resolution of his motions, he filed a Submission 19 dated October 28,
2008 informing the SEC that Gigi executed a Sworn Affidavit dated June 30,
2008 (Gigi's Sworn Affidavit) which she filed by registered mail with the
Office of the General Counsel per Registry Receipt No. 4349. A certified true
copy 20 of said Affidavit was attached in the Submission. 21
In its Order 22 dated November 3, 2008, the SEC directed petitioner to
file a Comment on the Submission within 10 days from receipt of the notice.
Failure to Comment within the prescribed period shall be construed as a
waiver to file the same. Petitioner did not file a comment. 23
SEC Order
In its Decision 24 dated November 12, 2009, the SEC revoked
petitioner's certificate of registration on the ground of fraud in its
procurement. It held that a legitimate doubt exists as to whether petitioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 complied with the mandatory requirement in Section 13 25 of the
Corporation Code as to the amount of capital stock to be subscribed and paid
for purposes of incorporation. 26
Per its Articles of Incorporation (AOI), petitioner has an authorized
capital stock of P8,000,000.00 divided into 80,000 common shares. Twenty
thousand (20,000) common shares had been subscribed amounting to
P2,000,000.00, of which P1,000,000.00 was paid on subscription. The total
number of subscribed shares, that is 20,000 common shares, is exactly the
minimum threshold mandated under Section 13, which is 25% of the
authorized capital stock. It appeared that of the 20,000 common shares, Gigi
subscribed to 1,600 shares and paid P80,000.00. However, in her Sworn
Affidavit; Gigi asserted that she and her mother firmly declined Servacio's
invitation for them to join in the establishment of petitioner. Much to their
surprise, however, their names appeared in the AOI as incorporators. They
never signed any document, never subscribed to any stock, and never
invested any money to the corporation. Thus, the SEC ruled that there was
fraud in the primary franchise of petitioner because it was misrepresented
that Gigi subscribed and paid for the capital stock of petitioner. Subtracting
Gigi's misrepresented subscription would result in petitioner's non-
compliance with the required subscription under Section 13. 27
The SEC noted that the matters stated in the Sworn Affidavit of Gigi are
uncontroverted. Petitioner was given an opportunity to comment and refute
the Submission and its attachment but it failed to do so. The Sworn Affidavit
is also a notarial document and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated
therein. It has a presumption of regularity in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary. Further, petitioner, in its
Comment/Opposition, did not make valid specific denial of fraud. It argued
that the issue had prescribed invoking Article 1146 28 of the Civil Code.
However, Article 1146 applies only in a civil and not in an administrative
case and a corporation's primary franchise is a mere privilege granted
subject to the conditions imposed by the State. 29
Meanwhile, the SEC did not give credence to the other grounds for
revocation raised by respondent. First, as to the failure of petitioner to file its
reportorial requirements from 1997 to 2006, the SEC stated that it already
revoked petitioner's certificate of registration based on this ground in its
Order dated September 29, 2003. Said revocation was set aside when
petitioner updated its reports. The SEC cannot revoke petitioner's certificate
of registration for the second time based on the same delinquency for the
same reportorial period. 30 Second, as to claim of serious misrepresentation,
the SEC ruled that petitioner had no knowledge that its certification of
registration was revoked, having learned the same from respondent. Hence,
petitioner cannot be said to have misrepresented itself as an on-going
registered corporation during the interim period that its certificate was
revoked. The allegation of imposition of unconscionable interest and other
illegal charges was also unsubstantiated. 31 Third, with respect to
respondent's claim that the prior revocation of petitioner's certificate
resulted in its automatic dissolution which can no longer revived, the SEC
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 ruled that respondent could no longer assail the June 29, 2006 Order for the
lifting of revocation because he failed to seasonably elevate to a higher
tribunal the denial of his motion for intervention. He cannot use the present
petition to have the June 29, 2006 Order be reconsidered. 32
Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed Decision, 33 the CA affirmed the SEC ruling. It held that
petitioner is bound by the failure of its counsel, Richard W. Sison &
Associates, to file a comment on the Submission of respondent and Sworn
Affidavit of Gigi. It rejected the argument that the death of Atty. Richard
Sison (Atty. Sison), the owner of the law firm, dissolved the firm such that
petitioner had no counsel when SEC directed it to file a comment. Citing
relevant case law, the CA held that the death of an attorney does not
extinguish the lawyer-client relationship where the legal representation is by
a law firm. Furthermore, the record showed that Atty. Sison died on May 21,
2008, while the SEC's directive to comment was issued on November 3,
2008. Any one of the associates in the law firm ought to have filed a
comment. There was also a gap of five months between the death of Atty.
Sison and SEC's Order. Had petitioner been vigilant with the progress of the
case, it could have ensured compliance with the order of the SEC or secured
another firm to represent it. 34
With respect to the merits of the case, the CA ruled that there was
substantial evidence that there was fraud in the procurement of petitioner's
certificate of registration. Petitioner insisted that Gigi should confirm and
affirm her Sworn Affidavit by way of clarificatory hearing. However, the 2006
Rules of Procedure of the SEC states that the proceedings of the SEC shall
be summary in nature and affidavits may be submitted as supporting
evidence. Gigi's Sworn Affidavit demonstrated her competence to testify on
the matter stated therein. She revealed that Servacio was her aunt by
affinity. 35 Servacio married Cesar who is the brother of Luisita. Luisita is the
mother of Gigi. Petitioner was not able to justify the finding of the SEC that
the total subscribed shares including that of the misrepresented shares of
Gigi consists of the minimum threshold mandated by law, such that when
the 1,600 shares of Gigi were subtracted from the total subscription of
20,000 common shares, the same would result in a violation of Section 13 of
the Corporation Code. 36
Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the CA denied in its
challenged Resolution. 37 The CA held that petitioner's right to due process
was not violated when it was not able to cross-examine Gigi. Formal or trial-
type hearing is not at all times and, in all instances, essential to due process.
Besides, petitioner was required to file a comment on Gigi's Sworn Affidavit,
but it did not comply with directive of the SEC. The CA also reiterated that
petitioner had sufficient time to check the status of its case with Atty. Sison's
associates, but it slept on its rights. Petitioner is bound by its own inaction.
38

Petitioner raised the following arguments in its Petition before US:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 First, there was no substantial evidence to warrant the revocation of its
legal personality because the SEC's reliance on Gigi's Sworn Affidavit was
misplaced. Gigi did not testify before the SEC and petitioner was not able to
cross-examine her. Case law instructs that a mere affidavit, though
notarized, which was never identified, testified and confirmed is hearsay and
has no probative value. 39
Second , granting without admitting Gigi's Sworn Affidavit, the action to
file a petition for revocation of petitioner's certificate of registration has long
prescribed. The cause of action accrued on June 6, 1987 when petitioner was
incorporated. Action based on fraud must be filed within four years from said
registration with the SEC. Even if the action prescribes in 10 years, still
respondent's petition was belatedly filed. 40
Third, petitioner did not waive its right to answer or file any comment
on Gigi's Sworn Affidavit. It has no counsel of record when SEC ordered it to
file a Comment since Atty. Sison's death caused the dissolution of the law
firm. 41
In its Comment, respondent alleged that petitioner was not deprived of
due process. The lawyer who filed the petition for review before Us is the
very same associate of the law firm which handled the case before the SEC.
The Submission which contained Gigi's Sworn Affidavit was also served at
petitioner's business address. If it were so minded, it could have engaged
the services of another counsel to controvert the Submission and the
allegations in Gigi's Sworn Affidavit. Jurisprudence also states that it is not
the duty of the courts to inquire, during the progress of the case, whether
the law firm representing one of the litigants continues to exist or whether
the partners are still alive, or whether the associates are still connected with
the firm. It is the parties who have the duty to inform the court of their
counsel's death. Their failure to do so means that they have been negligent
in the protection of their cause. Accordingly, respondent prayed for the
dismissal of the petition. 42
In its Reply/Compliance on the Show Cause Order, 43 petitioner alleged
that it already exhaustively discussed its side in its Petition for Review. It
noted that Servacio died on November 26, 2015 as evidenced by her Death
Certificate 44 attached to the Reply. The remaining stockholders, officers,
and incorporators of petitioner, who happen to be family members, are not
anymore interested in pursuing the case as they are in the process of
dissolving the corporation. Petitioner is now in the stage of liquidation,
collating its asserts, and collecting whatever collectibles it has in its favor. 45
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the CA erred in affirming the
revocation of petitioner's certificate of registration on the ground of fraud in
its procurement.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
At the outset, petitioner in this case was incorporated in 1987. Thus,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the provisions of Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 68 or the Corporation Code of
the Philippines shall govern. Title II of the said Code specifics the
requirements for the incorporation and organization of private corporations
in the Philippines. Section 13 of which provides the minimum amount of
capital to be subscribed and paid for purposes of incorporation, viz.:
Section 13. Amount of Capital Stock to be Subscribed and Paid for
Purposes of Incorporation. — At least twenty-five (25%) percent
of the authorized capital stock as stated in the articles of
incorporation must be subscribed at the time of
incorporation, and at least twenty-five (25%) percent of the
total subscription must be paid upon subscription, the balance
to be payable on a date or dates fixed in the contract of subscription
without need of call, or in the absence of a fixed date or dates, upon
call for payment by the board of directors: Provided, however, That in
no case shall the paid-up capital be less than five thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos. (Emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, the AOI of the corporation must also state the amount of
the authorized capital stock of a stock corporation, the number of shares into
which it is divided, the par value of each, if any, the names, nationalities,
and residences of the original subscribers, and the amount subscribed and
paid by each on his/her subscription. The SEC shall not accept the AOI of a
stock corporation unless accompanied by a sworn statement of the
Treasurer that at least 25 percent of the authorized capital stock of the
corporation has been subscribed, and at least 25 percent of the total
subscription has been fully paid to him/her in actual cash and/or in property
the fair valuation of which is equal to at least 25 percent of the said
subscription, such paid-up capital being not less than P5,000.00. 46
If a corporation violates any provision of the Corporation Code, it may,
after notice and hearing, be dissolved in appropriate proceedings before the
SEC. 47 Presidential Decree No. (PD) 902-A 48 vests upon the SEC the power
to suspend or revoke, after proper notice and hearing, the franchise or
certificate of registration of corporations, partnerships, or associations, upon
any of the grounds provided by law, including among others, fraud in
procuring its certificate of registration. 49
Here, petitioner was granted a certificate of registration implying that
it had complied with all the requisites for incorporation including Section 13.
However, the SEC found otherwise in SEC Case No. 02-07-169. It gave
credence to Gigi's Sworn Affidavit attesting that she neither signed as
incorporator nor subscribed and paid for any of the shares of the
corporation. We agree with the SEC.
Gigi's Sworn Affidavit reads:
1. I know a certain ESTER L. SERVACIO, Filipino, a businesswoman
and also a resident of Manhatan, Maasin City, Southern Leyte.
2. I am related by affinity to ESTER L. SERVACIO. ESTER is married
to CESAR SERVACIO, the brother of LUISITA SON-RICH, my
mother. In short, ESTER SERVACIO is my aunt.
3. I remembered that ESTER L. SERVACIO sometime in the late
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 1980's asked my mother LUISITA-SON RICH and me to join her in
establishing Maasin Traders Lending Corp. (MTLC), but I and my
mother LUISITA SON-RICH declined firmly.
4. Lately I learned much to my surprise, my name and that of my
mother LUISITA SON-RICH appeared in the Articles of
Incorporation of Maasin Traders Lending Corporation as among
the incorporators.
5. My mother and I had never agreed to join in the MTLC,
never signed any document relative thereto, never
subscribed of any stock and never invested any money to
the said corporation.
6. The signatures appearing in the MTLC Articles of
Incorporation is not mine nor are these of my mother
LUISITA SON-RICH.
7. This Affidavit is being executed to comply with the September
26, 2007 (in connection with SEC Case No. 02-01-169) Order of
the Securities & Exchange Commission, which Order was
received by the undersigned only on June 23, 2008 together with
the May 30, 2008 Order. x x x 50 (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner failed to controvert the foregoing assertions of Gigi before
the SEC. At the time of its incorporation, petitioner has an authorized capital
stock of P8,000,000.00 divided into 80,000 common shares. Twenty-five
percent of 80,000 shares is 20,000 shares, of which 1,600 shares were
misrepresented to have been subscribed and paid for by Gigi. Without the
misrepresentation, petitioner could not have been registered with the SEC
because it would fall short of the requirement provided in Section 13 of the
Corporation Code.
PD 902-A and the Corporation Code do not define fraud. Nevertheless,
case law teaches that fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise
anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence
justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another, or by which an undue and
unconscionable advantage is taken of another. 51 Fraud may be committed
through insidious machination, manipulation, concealment, or
misrepresentation that would lead an ordinarily prudent person into error
after taking the circumstances into account. 52 In this case, there is
substantial evidence that petitioner committed fraud by misrepresentation. It
led the SEC to believe that it complied with Section 13 of the Corporation
Code by making it appear that Gigi subscribed for 1,600 common shares and
paid P80,000.00 for the same.
We reject petitioner's argument that Gigi's Sworn Affidavit should not
be given any probative value for being hearsay. Pursuant to the 2006 SEC
Rules of Procedure (SEC Rules), the proceedings before the SEC shall be
summary in nature subject to the requirements of due process, and the
technical rules of evidence used in the regular courts, whenever practicable,
may be applied suppletorily. 53 The affidavits of the parties' respective
witnesses, documents, and other supporting evidence shall be attached to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the appropriate pleading. The supporting affidavits shall be made on
personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as will be admissible in
evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify
on the matters stated therein. 54 As correctly ruled by the SEC, Gigi's Sworn
Affidavit showed her competence to testify about the alleged fraud in the
AOI of petitioner. The affidavit was also based on her own personal
knowledge.
Moreover, petitioner was not deprived of due process because it was
not able to cross-examine Gigi. The SEC gave petitioner ample opportunity to
be heard. It directed petitioner to file a comment on Gigi's Sworn Affidavit,
but petitioner failed to do so. Due process, as a constitutional precept, does
not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type hearing. Litigants may
be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers,
memoranda, or oral arguments. Thus, it is not legally objectionable for being
violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based
solely on the position papers, affidavits, or documentary evidence submitted
by the parties. The standard of due process that must be met in
administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as
fairness is not ignored. 55 Thus, in Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Universal Rightfield Property Holdings, Inc., 56 We upheld the SEC's
revocation of therein respondent corporation's certificate of registration of
securities even without a formal hearing. We ruled that the SEC substantially
complied with the requirements of due process when it gave the corporation
opportunity to be heard. The SEC considered the letters of explanation of the
corporation before it issued the order of revocation.
Petitioner's assertion that the death of Atty. Sison, the owner and
managing partner of Richard W. Sison & Associates, left it without any
counsel on record deserves scant consideration. The counsel of petitioner is
not Atty. Sison per se but the law firm Richard W. Sison & Associates. The
death of a partner or an associate does not terminate the attorney-client
relationship where a law firm is the legal counsel. The law firm could re-
assign the case to another associate or it could withdraw front the case. 57
Here, there is no evidence that Richard W. Sison & Associates filed a motion
to withdraw as counsel of petitioner before the SEC.
Moreover, the record shows that Atty. Sison died on May 21, 2008 58 or
almost five months before the SEC issued its Order dated November 3, 2008,
directing petitioner to file a comment on the Submission. The Submission
together with its annex, Gigi's Sworn Affidavit, were also sent to petitioner's
business address. 59 Thus, petitioner was duly notified of the allegations
against it, but it did not lift any finger to refute them. It could have filed a
comment by employing a new counsel or by reaching out to the lawyers of
Richard W. Sison & Associates. It is well settled that a litigant bears the
responsibility of monitoring the developments of his/her case for no prudent
party leaves the fate of his/her case entirely in the hands of his lawyer.
He/she should suffer whatever adverse judgment is rendered against
him/her for his failure to keep himself/herself up to date on the status of
his/her case. 60
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Lastly, petitioner's argument that the action for revocation had already
prescribed has no leg to stand on. Suffice it to state that the Corporation
Code and PD 902-A did not provide for the prescriptive period for filing a
case for revocation of certificate of registration of corporations. Under Article
1149 of the Civil Code, all actions whose period are not fixed in the Civil
Code or in other laws must be brought within five years from the time the
right of action accrues. Here, the right of action accrued from the discovery
of petitioner's misrepresentation which was in 2006 or when respondent filed
the petition for revocation in the SEC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated July 29,
2013 and the Resolution dated May 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 04708 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG

III
Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 8-17.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with the concurrence of Associate

Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap; id. at 24-32.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles, with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Renato C. Francisco; id. at 43-46.
4. Id. at 112-123.

5. Id. at 112.
6. Id. at 113.
7. Id. at 86.
8. Id. at 113.
9. Id. at 48-62.

10. Id. at 56-60.

11. Id. at 63-75.
12. Id. at 71.
13. Id. at 73.

14. Id. at 74.

15. Id. at 66-69.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Id. at 26.
17. Id.
18. Motion to Enjoin Miss Luisita Rich or Mary Ann Rich-Miel to Strictly Comply with
the Order, Motion to Take Deposition of Ms. Mary Ann "Gigi" Miel and
Omnibus Motion; Id. at 26.
19. Id. at 105-106.
20. Id. at 107.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 109.

23. Id.
24. Id. at 112-123.
25. Section 13. Amount of capital stock to be subscribed and paid for the purposes
of incorporation. — At least twenty-five percent (25%) of the
authorized capital stock as stated in the articles of incorporation
must be subscribed at the time of incorporation, and at least
twenty-five (25%) per cent of the total subscription must be paid
upon subscription, the balance to be payable on a date or dates fixed in
the contract of subscription without need of call, or in the absence of a fixed
date or dates, upon call for payment by the board of directors: Provided,
however, That in no case shall the paid-up capital be less than Five Thousand
(P5,000.00) pesos. (Emphasis supplied).
26. Rollo , p. 122.
27. Id. at 122.
28. Article 1146. The following actions must be instituted within four years:
(1) Upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff;

(2) Upon a quasi-delict;

29. Rollo , p. 121.
30. Id. at 114-115.
31. Id. at 117.

32. Id. at 115.

33. Supra note 2.
34. Rollo , pp. 30-31.
35. Id. at 31.
36. Id. at 31-32.

37. Supra note 3.

38. Rollo , 45-46.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 39. Id. at 13-15.
40. Id. at 15-16.
41. Id. at 16-17.
42. Id. at 138-139.
43. In Our Resolution dated July 25, 2016, We required petitioner's counsel to show
cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for
failure to comply with the Resolution dated September 2, 2015 directing it to
file a Reply to the Comment; id. at 152.
44. Id. at 155.
45. Id. at 153-154.
46. See Section 15 of BP 68.
47. See Section 144 of BP 68.

48. Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange Commission with Additional

Powers and Placing the Said Agency under the Administrative Supervision of
the Office of the President.
49. See Section 6 (i) (l) of PD 902-A.

50. Rollo , p. 107.

51. Ferro Chemicals, Inc. v. Garcia , 796 Phil. 321, 349-350 (2016).

52. Id. citing Solidbank Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corporation, 502 Phil.
651, 669 (2005).
53. See Rule I, Secs. 1-4. Nature of Proceedings, 2006 SEC Rules.

54. See Rule III, Secs. 3-14 Affidavits, Documents and Other Evidence.

55. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Universal Rightfield Property Holdings,

Inc., 764 Phil. 267, 284 (2015) citing A.Z. Arnaiz, Realty, Inc. v. Office of the
President, 638 Phil. 481, 491 (2010).
56. 764 Phil. 267 (2015).

57. B.R. Sebastian Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 282 Phil. 928, 941 (1992).
58. Rollo , p. 110.

59. Id. at 106.

60. Baclaran Marketing Corp. v. Nieva, G.R. No. 189881, April 19, 2017, citing
Bejarasco, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 159781, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 328,
331.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com