Mariano Pineda vs.

Honorable Lantin, Bacolod-Muracia Milling and Araneta

G.R. No. L-15350, 30 November 1962

Digested by: Abbas S. Macadatar

Doctrine:

Whenever a party is aggrieved by or disagrees with an order or ruling of the

Securities and Exchange Commission, his remedy is to come to this Court (SC) on
a petition for review. He is not permitted to seek relief from courts of general
jurisdiction.

Facts:

In a letter addressed to the SEC, Lacscon and Lopez complained of certain

actions of the Respondent Corporation and its President Mr. Araneta. They claim
that the Corporation and its president committed various acts in violation of its
Articles of Incorporation, the corporation code and pertinent Rules and
regulation issued by the SEC to the prejudice of the minority stockholders of the
corporation.

Acting on the Letter, Pineda, as SEC commissioner ordered the Investigation

of the Charges. Respondent corporation was does issued a subpoena duces tecum.
Respondent, however, contended that with the approval of RA1143, the power
given to the SEC to conduct investigation has been qualified and made subject to
the condition that such investigation must be conducted in accordance with the
rules adopted by the Commission, which the Commission has not yet adopted.
Their objection was denied by Pineda. Thus, they filed a special civil action for
prohibition against petitioner before the Sala of Judge Lantin of CFI Manila. The
petitioner argued in their motion to dismiss that the CFI (now RTC) has no
jurisdiction to the Prohibition filed by the Corporation as only the Supreme Court
has Jurisdiction to issue writ of prohibition to the SEC. The CFI denied the motion
to dismiss. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Issue:

Whether the CFI has Jurisdiction over Prohibition case filed against the
SEC?

Ruling:

No. This Tribunal holds the view that under the Rules of Court and the law
applicable to the case at bar, a Court of First Instance has no jurisdiction to grant
injunctive reliefs against the Securities and Exchange Commission. That power is
lodged exclusively with this Court, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 43 and Section
35 of Commonwealth Act No. 83 as amended by RA 635, creating as setting forth
the powers and function of the SEC.

Beyond doubt, therefore, whenever a party is aggrieved by or disagrees with

an order or ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission, his remedy is to
come to this Court on a petition for review. He is not permitted to seek relief
from courts of general jurisdiction.

The role of the Securities and Exchange Commission in our national economy
cannot be minimized. The legislature has entrusted to it the serious
responsibility of enforcing all laws affecting corporations and other forms of
associations not otherwise vested in some other government offices. Being
charged, therefore, with overseeing the operations of those various corporate
enterprises from which our government derives great revenues and income, it
cannot afford to be impeded or restrained in the performance of its functions by
writs of injunction emanating from tribunals subordinate to this Court. If every
Court of First Instance can enjoin the Commission from pursuing its objectives,
and, in the premises, substitute its judgment for that of the Commission on what
should or should not be done, then, no one will suffer thereby but the economy of
our body politic and, eventually, this country's citizenry. Certainly, the legislature
could never have intended that.