429 Phil. 462; 98 OG No. 41, 5838 (October 14, 2002)
KAPUNAN, J.:
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision reversing the SEC, holding that certiorari was improper. The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:I
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION EN BANC ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT YAMAOKA’S APPEAL BELATEDLY FILED 52 CALENDAR DAYS FROM RESPONDENT’S RECEIPT OF THE 21 JULY 1999 ORDER OF HEARING OFFICER SIMEON P. BADILLO, DENYING RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.
(A) WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT YAMAOKA’S APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSION EN BANC, FILED ON 17 DECEMBER 1999 IS COVERED BY THE SEC NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE, PROMULGATED ON 15 JULY 1999.(B) WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION EN BANC ACTED PROPERLY IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE APPEAL, MUCH LESS IN RESOLVING THE MERITS OF THE PETITION.II
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION EN BANC CORRECTLY RULED IN FINDING THAT:
(A) THE SIX (6) PROMISSORY NOTES EXECUTED BY YAMAOKA IN FAVOR OF ADAHI WERE ISSUED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.(B) THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT CONVEYING ALL OF YAMAOKA’S SHARES IN FAVOR OF ADACHI WAS VALID, EFFECTIVE AND BINDING.(C) YAMAOKA AND ADACHI SUBSEQUENTLY AGREED TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT.III
WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION EN BANC ACTED CORRECTLY IN ISSUING A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND IN ORDERING THE FORMATION OF A MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE.[1]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and accordingly GRANTED. The Decision rendered by the Securities and Exchange Commission En Banc on June 6, 2000 in SEC-EB No. 690 entitled “Kanemitsu Yamaoka v. Hon. Hearing Officer Simeon P. Badillo, Jr., Yamaoka Nippon Corporation (now Pescarich Manufacturing Corporation), Tetsuo Adachi, and Eiji Kawai,” is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.Petitioner elevated the case to this Court. The Court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals on the ground that the SEC rules did not prohibit certiorari as a remedy against interlocutory orders. Thus:
Consequently, let a writ of injunction [be] issue[d] permanently enjoining respondent, the Commission En Banc and/or the appropriate branch of the Regional Trial Court, their representatives, agents, employees, or other persons acting for and in their behalf, from executing and/or implementing the Decision of the Commission En Banc dated June 6, 2000 rendered in the said SEC-EB No. 690.[2]
WHEREFORE, the petition is given DUE COURSE and GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED.[3]On September 4, 2001, respondents filed its motion for partial reconsideration. Respondents pray that the Court modify its decision “in that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Court of Appeals shall remain in effect to maintain the status quo of the parties, particularly with respect to (i) the portion of the SEC En Banc Decision in EB 690 enjoining respondents from exercising their rights over the 40% disputed shares and from managing and disbursing the funds of respondent Corporation and (ii) the Order directing the constitution of a Management Committee, pending further proceedings.”