|
The
Securities Regulation Code of 2000 has provisions on the
powers and functions of the SEC to issue cease and
desist orders (CDO) to prevent fraud or injury to the
investing public (Section 5 (i) of the SRC) and to
punish for contempt of the Commission, both direct and
indirect, in accordance with the pertinent provisions of
and penalties prescribed by the Rules of Court (Section
5 (j) of the SRC).
The 2006
Rules of Procedure of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC or Commission) discusses the manner and
procedure in the issuance of the said CDO. The Rules
relates specifically to the procedures in the
enforcement of the Corporation Code of the Philippines (B.P.
Blng 68), The Securities Regulation Code of 2000 (R.A.
8799), Presidential Decree 902-A and other related laws
being implemented by the SEC.
Under
the said Rules, a verified complaint may be filed by the
aggrieved party with the Commission, through the
Compliance and Enforcement Department (CED), for the
issuance of a CDO in accordance with Section 64 of the
Securities Regulation Code of 2000 (SRC).
In
issuing the CDO, the Commission, through the Office of
the General Counsel (OGC) and after a proper
investigation by the CED, motu proprio, or upon verified
complaint, may issue a CDO even without prior hearing if
it can be found that the act or practice, unless
restrained by a competent court, will operate as a fraud
on investing public or is otherwise likely to cause
grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to investors
like the selling of unregistered securities. The
Commission En Banc may also issue an order for the grant
of a CDO on other cases in accordance with its powers
under existing laws. An example of this is when there is
evident fraud in the procurement of registration of the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of a corporation.
The CDO is also available in case of anonymous
complaints or based on information that has come to the
attention of the Commission, which requires immediate
action to protect the general public. (Rule X, The 2006
Rules of Procedure of the SEC)
The
Commission through its officer (Hearing panel or
authorized officer) may also summarily pass judgment on
acts of direct contempt committed in the presence, or
near to the officer of the SEC as to seriously interrupt
or obstruct the proceedings. This includes disrespect
towards the hearing panel or officer, offensive acts
towards others, and other contumacious acts. Persons
found to be in direct contempt shall be punished in
accordance with the penalties prescribed by the Rules of
Court. The officer of the SEC may ask for assistance
with law-enforcement agencies in carrying out the
exercise of SEC’s disciplinary authority. The SEC may,
after observance of due process, cite or punish any
person for indirect contempt on any grounds provided for
in the Revised Rules of Court. (Rule VII, 2006 Rules of
Procedure of the SEC).
A
caveat, however, must be considered on the power to cite
in contempt of any body or tribunal. As held by the
Supreme Court, the power to punish for contempt is to be
exercised on the preservative and not on the vindictive
principle. Only occasionally should it be invoked to
preserve that respect without which the administration
of justice will fail. The contempt power ought not to be
utilized for the purpose of merely satisfying an
inclination to strike back at a party for showing less
than full respect for the dignity of the court. ([G.R.
112869.
January 29, 1996.]
Kelly R. Wicker and Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, petitioners,
vs. Hon. Paul T. Arcangel, as Presiding Judge of the RTC,
Makati, Branch 134, respondent.) |