|
THE
Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) on Monday insisted that
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) committed
grave abuse of discretion when it issued a
cease-and-desist order (CDO) and the show-cause order
enjoining the validation of the 1.9-billion proxy shares
during the power firms’ annual stockholders’ meeting on
May 27.
During
the hearing on the petition seeking to declare null and
void the said SEC orders, the Lopez bloc through its
lawyer, former ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, insisted that
the issue on the validity of proxies is within the
jurisdiction of the lower court being an intracorporate
dispute.
“Election contest is an intracorporate controversy,
including the validation of proxies. The moment it went
to validation process, that is already within the
jurisdiction of a regular court,” Marcelo said.
Marcelo
said the CDO issued by the SEC is null and void as the
authority to issue such had already been transferred to
the regional trial courts which have been designated as
special commercial courts under Republic Act 8799, or
the Securities Regulation Code (SRC). He added that the
SEC violated his clients’ right to due process when it
issued the CDO without hearing the parties involved and
without the approval of the SEC’s three commissioners.
The
Lopez bloc is composed of Anthony Rosete, acting
corporate secretary; Manuel Lopez, chairman of the board
and chief executive officer; Felipe Alfonso, vice
chairman; Jesus Francisco, president and chief operating
officer; Christian Monsod, board member; Elpidio Ibañez,
president and chief operating officer of First
Philippine Holdings Corp. (FPHC); and Francis Giles
Puno, chief officer, treasurer and executive vice
president of FPHC.
Associate Justice Jose Sabio, chairman of the Court of
Appeal’s Ninth Division, told the parties—the Lopez
bloc, the SEC, and the Government Service Insurance
System—to submit their respective memoranda dwelling on
three issues.
Among
the issues are whether the proxy forms that were used
by Meralco did not comply with the SEC rules and
regulations; whether the issue is an intracorporate one,
therefore, should be lodged before the lower court; and
whether SEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the CDO, granting that it had authority to issue
such.
Sabio
also questioned SEC’s authority to prevent the election
of Meralco’s board of officers considering that the SRC
only empowers it to supervise election process.
“The way
the CDO was worded, it had gone beyond to what it
ordinarily should exercise because it prevented the
election. Does it have an authority to prevent
elections?” Sabio commented.
Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Tang, representing
the SEC, dismissed allegations that the Lopez bloc was
denied due process when the commission issued the CDO.
Tang
recounted that the CDO was issued after prior
deliberations by the three commissioners of the SEC. She
insisted that the commissioners need not be physically
present to sign the CDO as long as they were consulted
on the matter. |