Well-entrenched is the rule that by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts (Palele v. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 141).

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) made a ruling in a case involving a domestic corporation (petitioner) which filed a petition for rehabilitation and declaration in a state of suspension of payments. The SEC, in this regard, issued an order declaring that the filing of the said petition, all actions for claims against the petitioner that are pending or still to be filed before any court, tribunal, office, board, body and/or commission were deemed suspended immediately, and the said suspension shall last for 30 calendar days from the date of the order, unless shortened or extended by the hearing panel of the SEC. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revised rehabilitation plan praying that it be entitled to a suspension of payments and rehabilitation. Then the SEC rendered a decision approving the plan and constituted an oversight committee to ensure that the assets and business of the petitioner are conserved and other conditions to be abided by the petitioner.

The SEC then issued an order setting aside its decision and dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner’s present capital is deemed inadequate to cover its liabilities and the SEC hearing panel found out that its debt-equity ratio for specific years is above the allowed standard ratio. While the commission previously approved the rehabilitation plan, it had no choice but to terminate the proceedings based on its thorough findings that the plan submitted was not viable pursuant to the SEC’s rules.

The petitioner questioned the order of the SEC in the Court of Appeals on the grounds that since the SEC had already made its findings of fact and conclusions of law in its decision, there is no justifiable reason to ignore said findings and conclusions and set aside its decision and that an oversight committee has already been created to carry out the powers spelled out in its decision or finding. The SEC defended its stance and made a statement that while it is true that it had already made its findings and conclusions in the decision, “there is no law or rule that will prevent it from amending or changing its former findings if it finds reasonable basis, therefore, and the fact that the creation of an oversight committee will not prevent the SEC from dismissing the petition it finds reasonable grounds to do so.”

The High Court ruled that the petition must fail. The basis of the ruling is that the SEC has the power to terminate rehabilitation proceedings upon a finding that the rehabilitation of the debtor is no longer feasible (Section 21 of the Rules on Corporate Recovery). The SEC, in this case, has already made a finding on the matter. As correctly ruled, in this kind of action as regards corporate recovery, the SEC retains jurisdiction over rehabilitation proceedings until its termination. The said rule provides that in case there is a determination that the rehabilitation plan may no longer be implemented in accordance with its terms, conditions, restrictions and assumptions, the SEC shall, upon, motu proprio or upon recommendation of the interim or rehabilitation receiver, terminate the proceedings.

It is, therefore, clear that the authority or jurisdiction of the SEC over this kind of cases does not end only with the approval of the distressed entity’s rehabilitation plan. It may, from time to time, review or examine the viability of the rehabilitation plan in the light of prevailing circumstances and the assumptions upon which it is based. Hence, any finding of fact made by the SEC in a previous decision or order pertaining to the rehabilitation case cannot be considered final and immutable until the proceedings are terminated (Datem Corporation v. SEC, et  al., CA-GR SP 78010).

The foregoing case having been decided under the controlling law then, PD 902-A, although no longer prevailing today since RA 8799 was enacted with regard the SEC exercising rehabilitation powers over corporations, still presents a valid doctrine as regards the respect the appellate court gives to the findings and rulings of the commission on issues within its jurisdiction. The expertise of administrative departments is usually viewed by the courts as integral to the effort to ferret out the truth about a conflicted matter and the correct way to address the same under the conditions prevailing.

FILINVEST Land Inc. and Megaworld Corp. paced a four-day climb among Philippine property stocks, the longest rally in more than two months, on speculation bank lending will boost home sales and office rents will rise.

Metro Pacific turns around from loss

METRO PACIFIC Investments Corp. said Tuesday it made a core net income of P194.9 million last year from a net loss of P25.4 million a year earlier.

FOUR companies that raised capital by selling shares in the market have deviated from how they said they would spend the money from the shares sale, the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) said Tuesday.

IP E-GAME Ventures Inc. (IP E-Games), a subsidiary of publicly traded IPVG Corp., has entered into a game-publishing and distribution deal with Korean game developer EST Soft.

VSSC Distribution Inc., an enterprise security-solutions provider, launched Tuesday the ForeScout Technologies clientless network access control (NAC) solutions in the Philippines.

NATIONAL Reinsurance Corp. of the Philippines said Tuesday its net income for 2007 rose 121 percent to P609 million from P275 million a year earlier.

Well-entrenched is the rule that by reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts (Palele v. Court of Appeals, 362 SCRA 141).