|
THE
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on Wednesday
asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare null and void
the July 23 controversial decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) which nullified the cease and-desist order
(CDO) and the show cause order (SCO) issued by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enjoining the
Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) from validating the proxy
votes of the Lopez bloc during its stockholders’ meeting
on May 27.
In a
62-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, the
GSIS through its lawyer, Estrella Elamparo, also asked
the High Court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction
to prevent Meralco from implementing the said CA ruling.
The GSIS
maintained that it was the SEC and the trial court that
have exclusive jurisdiction over its petition that is
being considered as an election contest and an
intracorporate controversy.
It added
that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
recommended that GSIS lawyers be administratively held
liable for unauthorized practice of law; for violating
provisions of law defying public policy in deliberately
displacing the Office of the Government Corporate
Counsel (OGCC) from its duty as the exclusive lawyer of
GSIS by defending cases and appearing as counsel for
GSIS, without authority to do so.
“The
challenged decision passed upon issues which were never
raised; granted reliefs not prayed for; dismissed a case
that was not pending before it; completely ignored a
pending motion to inhibit the ponente; disregarded
well-settled jurisprudence vesting the Securities and
Exchange Commission with jurisdiction on violations of
the Securities Regulation Code; and…ratified the brazen
defiance by private respondents of the cease and desist
order issued by the SEC,” the GSIS said.
It named
Meralco officials Anthony Rosete, Manuel Lopez, Felipe
Alfonso, Jesus Francisco, Christian Monsod, Elpidio
Ibańez and Francis Giles Puno as respondents.
The GSIS
said the July 23 ruling on the case should be nullified
considering that it was the Special Ninth Division and
not the Eighth Division that has the authority to
resolve the case.
It
insisted that the Special Ninth Division gave due course
to its petition when it issued a temporary restraining
order on May 30 and submitted the case for decision
after the June 23 hearing.
The GSIS
noted that under the Internal Rules of the Court of
Appeals (IRCA), “When, in an original action or petition
for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely:
(1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary
injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting
execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall
remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for
study and report and the Justices who participated
therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions
in the same station.”
The said
provision, the petitioner said, clearly states that the
petition, after having been given due course, should
have remained with the members of the Special Ninth
Division who participated in the hearing.
The GSIS
branded as “suspicious” the resolution of the CA Eighth
Division considering that CA Presiding Justice Conrado
Vasquez had previously expressed his position to
Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Vicente Roxas, (ponente
of the Meralco ruling) who are members of the Eighth
Division along with Associate Justice Apolinario
Bruselas, that it should be the Special Ninth Division
which should resolve the petition.
In its
July 23 decision, the CA Eighth Division held that the
SEC’s undated CDO and SCO issued on May 28 are void due
to total absence of jurisdiction considering that
Section 5.2 of the Securities Regulation Code
transferred from SEC to Regional Trial Court original
and exclusively jurisdiction over “election contests”
and “intra-corporate controversies.”
The CA
stressed that election contests and intracorporate
disputes include validation of proxies, validity of
elections and proclamation of winners and all incidents
to a stockholder’s right to vote, in person, or by
proxy, at an election.
The GSIS
has been seeking to invalidate the proxies in favor of
the Lopez group for defiance and violation of the rules
made by the SEC on proxy solicitation.
The
Lopez bloc maintained that SEC has no jurisdiction over
intra-corporate disputes as it is primary lodged with
the appropriate regional trial court.
The GSIS,
however, insisted that the complained it filed before
the SEC was an administrative complaint for violation of
SEC rules on “proxy solicitation” and not to stop the
election. |
