SECTION 5.2 of Republic Act (RA) 8799 (Securities Regulation Code of 2000) does not qualify the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) jurisdiction when it mandates that it “shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracorporate disputes submitted for final resolution,  which should be resolved within one year from the enactment of this Code.” It is worthy to note that prior to the effectivity of RA 8799, the SEC had been exercising the power to execute its decisions over all intracorporate cases in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 5 of Presidential Decree 902-A (Capitol College of Iligan Inc. v. Commission on Audit (CA) GR 128941, January 28, 1999, 302 SCRA 349)

It has been repeatedly held that a case in which an execution has been issued is considered as still “pending” so that all proceedings on the execution are proceedings in the suit. (Mondejar v. Javellana, GR 116883, September 22, 1998, 295 SCRA 699, 712, citing Balais v. Velasco, GR 118491, January 31, 1996, 252 SCRA 707, 721).  Even assuming that a “decided” case pending execution can no longer be considered as “pending,” it is settled that the particular words, clauses and phrases in a law should not be studied as detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a harmonious whole (Yamaoka v. Pescarich Manufacturing Corp., GR 146079, July 20, 2001, 361 SCRA 672, 680, citing National Tobacco Administration v. Commission on Audit, GR 119385, August 5, 1999, 311 SCRA 755, 769).

In this situation, the word “pending” defines the phrase “cases submitted for final resolution” at the time the law took effect. Simply put, the reckoning point to determine whether a case is retained with the SEC for being a “pending case submitted for final resolution” is RA 8799’s date of effectivity. Otherwise, it would be revolting to the common sense to direct the SEC to resolve said cases within one year from the enactment of the Code. Having retained its jurisdiction over the instant case pursuant to Section 5.2 of RA 8799, the SEC must be deemed to have the power to execute its subject decision. A long-standing doctrine is that the tribunal, which rendered the decision or award has a general supervisory control over the process of its execution, and this includes the power to determine every question of fact and law, which may be involved in the execution (Mondejar v. Javellana, supra note 39, citing Vda. de Paman v. Señeris, L-37632, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA 709).

Note that the word “resolve” does not include “execute” is likewise futile. A fair reading of the law will show that the SEC was merely directed to render its decisions in the retained intracorporate cases within one year from the enactment of the Code. The word “should” is “the past tense of shall, ordinarily implying duty or obligation, although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from ‘ought.’”(Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition). Said directive cannot be stretched to mean that the SEC’s jurisdiction over the retained intracorporate cases has been limited to decision-making.

Since jurisdiction over said category of cases has been retained by the SEC, the one-year period from the enactment of the law within which the cases should be resolved was more of a directive to the SEC to hasten the resolution of the cases. A contrary holding results in absurdity, for—assuming that the cases were not resolved after the one-year period and the effect was that the SEC would lose jurisdiction over the cases—there would then be no court or body that could resolve the cases since jurisdiction over them was not transferred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

This construction is consistent with the legislative intent in the enactment of RA 8799, The Securities Regulation Code. The excerpt of congressional deliberations cited in the assailed CA decision reveals the unmistakable intent for said category of intracorporate cases to remain with the SEC. Another excerpt of the deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee on the Securities Act of 2000 confirms the intent for the SEC to finish the pending cases involving intracorporate disputes already submitted for final resolution. This must be deemed as including the power to execute as “execution is the fruit and end of the suit, and is very aptly called the life of the law.” (Garcia v. Echiverri, L-44455, October 23, 1984, 132 SCRA 631, 639, citing Carreon v. Buissan, L-41875, March 12, 1976, 70 SCRA 57).

We further take light from the presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure and courts are not to give words a meaning which would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences (Millares v. NLRC, G.R. 110524, July 29, 2002, 385 SCRA 306, 316 and Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et. al., GR 165382, August 17, 2006).

From the foregoing it can be finally resolved that the close to 583 cases that were left “pending” at the SEC at the time of its full reorganization by the effectivity of RA 8799 in 2000, will remain to be totally “decided” and ended even if their intracorporate nature would normally situate them within the jurisdiction of the RTC.

LA Union—Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. (PLDT) may put up another cable-landing facility, this time in the south, the phone giant’s chairman said right after the inauguration of the Philippine leg of the $550-million fiber-cable network.

PCCI wants energy sector to explain rate issues

FILIPINO businessmen want the players in the power sector to start explaining—in clear and detailed terms—why the country is suffering from “unreasonably high-power rates.”

CEBU electricity consumers may soon see the end of their low much talked-about low power rates.

Aboitiz Power Corp. (APC) said it will apply for a rate reset under the performance-based regulation (PBR) of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) for their distribution companies, effectively increasing their power rates by 2010.

DESPITE the rising prices of oil and basic commodities, the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) sees spending by companies on missionary projects in communities where they operate to remain flat.

SECTION 5.2 of Republic Act (RA) 8799 (Securities Regulation Code of 2000) does not qualify the Security and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) jurisdiction when it mandates that it “shall retain jurisdiction over pending cases involving intracorporate disputes submitted for final resolution,  which should be resolved within one year from the enactment of this Code.”