PINEDA v.

LANTIN  Aggrieved, the respondents filed a special civil action for prohibition with
Nov. 30, 1962|REGALA, J. | INJUNCTION AS PROVISIONAL REMEDY
Digester: Africa, Mabel
SUMMARY: Minority stockholders of Bacolod Murcia Milling filed a complaint with
the SEC against the said company and its president, Araneta. The SEC Commissioner
Pineda ordered the investigation of the case. Araneta and Bacolod Murcia moved to
quash and discontinue the proceedings and investigation due to an alleged lack of
jurisdiction of the SEC (due to non-promulgation of SEC’s rules). The SEC Comm
denied the motion. Hence, Araneta and Bacolod Murcia filed a Special Civil Action for
Injunction before the CFI. The SEC Comm and the investigators moved to dismiss the
special civil action on the ground of impropriety, since the CFI has no jurisdiction over
SEC orders. CFI Judge Lantin denied. The SEC filed with the SEC a petition for
certiorari attributing grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Lantin. The SC
agreed with the SEC. The CFI has no jurisdiction over the case of prohibition because
the same is lodged EXCLUSIVELY with the SC.
DOCTRINE: Under the ROC, the CFI has no jurisdiction to grant injunctive reliefs
against the SEC. That power is lodged EXCLUSIVELY with the SC.
1. Sec. 1, Rule 43 – within 30 days from notice of an order or decision issued by the
Public Service Commission or the SEC, any party aggrieved may file with the SC a
petition for review
2. Sec. 35, Commonwealth Act 83 (creating and setting forth the powers of the SEC) –
Any person aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission... may obtain a review of
such order in the SC
The above provisions are very clear. Whenever a party is aggrieved by or disagrees with
an order or ruling of the SEC, his remedy is to come to the SC on petition for review.
He is not permitted to seek relief from courts of general jurisdiction.
FACTS:
respondent Judge Lantin of the Manila CFI.
o The petitioners then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the CFI does not
have jurisdiction over the subject matter of appeal from/review of an SEC
decision-- such lies with the Supreme Court under Rule 43 and CA 83 as
amended. CFI DENIED the motion to dismiss. They filed an MR, which was
also denied. Though an answer was submitted at this point, the petitioners
filed this present petition for certiorari and prohibition.
RULING: Injunction granted.
Whether or not the CFI may issue injunctive reliefs against the SEC. NO, as
appellate jurisdiction is lodged entirely with the SC, effectively making the SEC a court on the same
level as the CFI.
RATIO:
 Rule 43.1 of the then-Rules of Court places review of SEC decisions to the
Supreme Court. Such is reiterated in CA 83 as amended (law creating the SEC).
 The relief sought, seeking a halt to the investigation because of alleged lack of
jurisdiction, was in effect a review of the SEC decision/order-- where the SEC
denied their motion to quash and discontinue. Certainly, that would be under Rule
43, as the Court has jurisdiction over all decisions and orders, even incidental
orders.
 The fact that the order is interlocutory does not mean such cannot be appealed in
such a manner, as appeal may be had if the appeal is grounded upon lack of
jurisdiction.

 In a letter addressed to the SEC, Tersa Cuaycong and Apeles Lopez, stockholders
of Bacolod-Murcia, complained of various actions of the said corporation that were
in violation of its articles of incorporation, the Corporation Code, and the SEC
rules, all prejudicial to its minor stockholders.
 Petitioner Pineda, the SEC Commissioner, ordered the investigation of the
company, with the other petitioners assigned as part of his investigation team.
 The issue here began when the petitioners addressed a subpoena duces tecum to
respondent Araneta and the trasurer and secretary of B-M.
o The respondents questioned the subpoena in a Petition to Reconsider Order
and to Set Aside Subpoena Duces Tecum, saying that the subpoena has to be
issued in accordance with the rules adopted by the SEC, but it had no rules
yet that could guide the subpoena. SEC DENIED the petition.
o They then filed a Motion to Quash and Discontinue Entire Proceedings,
reiterating the same arguments as their previous petition. They also imputed
conspiracy and oppressive behavior on the part of the stockholders. SEC
DENIED the petition.