corpo digest parts 12 to 13

8/9/2019 Corpo Digest Parts 12 to 13

1/6

G.R. No. 97816 July 24, 1992

MERRILL LYNCH FUTURES, INC., petitioner,

vs.HON. COURT OF AEALS, !"# $%& SOUSES E'RO M. LARA !"# ELISA G. LARA,

respondents.

F!($)*

On November 23, 1987, Merrill Lynch Futures, nc. !ML F"#"$%&', ( non)resident *orei+n corpor(tion, notdoin+ business in the hilippines, duly or+(ni-ed (nd eistin+ under (nd by virtue o* the l(/s o* the st(te o*0el(/(re, ".&., *iled ( compl(int /ith the $e+ion(l #ri(l ourt (t ue-on ity (+(inst the &pouses edro M.L(r( (nd %lis( 4. L(r( *or the recovery o* ( debt (nd interest thereon, d(m(+es, (nd (ttorney5s *ees.

ML F"#"$%& pr(yed !1' *or ( prelimin(ry (tt(chment (+(inst de*end(nt spouses5 properties 6up to the v(lueo* (t le(st 2,27,139.,6 (nd !2' *or :ud+ment, (*ter tri(l, sentencin+ the spouses to p(y.

relimin(ry (tt(chment /(s issued ex parte on 0ecember 2, 1987, (nd the de*end(nt spouses /ere dulyserved /ith summons.

#hey then *iled ( motion to dismiss d(ted 0ecember 18, 1987 on the +rounds th(t; !1' pl(inti** ML F"#"$%&h(d 6no le+(l c(p(city to sue6 (nd !2' its 6compl(int st(tes no c(use o* (ction since . . !it' is not the re(l p(rtyin interest.6

On u(tely est(blish th(t ML F"#"$%&, oper(tin+ in the "nited&t(tes, h(d indeed done business /ith the L(r( &pouses in the hilippines over sever(l ye(rs, h(d done so (t


2/6


3/6

country in the *irst pl(ce, or th(t its (+ent in this country, ML, h(d no license either to oper(te (s (6commodity (ndEor *in(nci(l *utures broDer.6

G.R. No. 168380 February 8, 2007

MANUEL V. BAVIERA, Petitioner,vs.ESPERANA PAGLINA!AN, "# $er %a&a%"'y a( )e&ar'*e#' o+ u('"%e S'a'e Pro(e%u'or- LEA /.

AN)RAARMAMEN, I# $er %a&a%"'y a( A(("('a#' /$"e+ S'a'e Pro(e%u'or a# /$a"r4o*a# o+

a(5 For%e o# Bu("#e(( S%a*- VEN/I R. UN, "# $"( %a&a%"'y a( )e&ar'*e#' o+ u('"%e /$"e+

S'a'e Pro(e%u'or- SAN)AR) /ARERE) BAN, PAUL SIMN MRRIS, AA AN!AL,

SRI)AR RAMAN, MARIVEL GNALES, /NA REES, MARIA ELLEN VI/R, a#

ENAI)A IGLESIAS, Respondents.

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

G.R. No. 170602 February 8, 2007

MANUEL V. BAVIERA, Petitioner,vs.SAN)AR) /ARERE) BAN, BRAN . SAN)ERSN, E RIG NRABLE LR)

SE!ARB, EVAN MERVN )AVIES, MI/AEL BERNAR) )ENMA, /RISPER

AVE)IS ELI, RI/AR) ENR ME))INGS, AI NARGL!ALA, PEER ALEAN)ER

SAN)S, RNNIE /I /UNG /AN, SIR / /!, BARR /LARE, !N PING,

RU)LP ARL) PEER ARAM, )AVI) GERGE MIR, IG E)!AR) NRN, SIR

RALP ARR RBINS, ANN !ILLIAM PAUL SENAM 9S'a#ar /$ar'ere Ba#5

/$a"r*a#, )e&u'y /$a"r*a#, a# Me*ber( o+ '$e Boar:, SERAAM MAARI 9Grou& Re;"o#a<ea +or /o#(u*er Ba#5"#;:, PAUL SIMN MRRIS, AA AN!AL, SRI)AR RAMAN,

MARIVEL GNALES, /NA REES, ELLEN VI/R, RAMNA . BERNA), )MING

/ARBNELL, R., a# ENAI)A IGLESIAS 9S'a#ar /$ar'ere Ba#5P$"


4/6

Philippines to non-residents. 0t the end of the second year, the a&ove ratio shall &e 132, which ratiomust &e o&served continuously thereafter4

*. 5he trust operations of S!B shall &e su&ect to all existin% laws, rules and re%ulations applica&le totrust services, particularly the creation of a 5rust !ommittee4 and

+. 5he &an" shall inform the appropriate supervisin% and examinin% department of the BSP at the start ofits operations.

0pparently, S!B did not comply with the a&ove conditions. nstead, as early as (6, it acted as a stoc" &ro"er,solicitin% from local residents forei%n securities called 789:B09 5HRD P0R5; M


5/6

:n @uly (1, *33+, petitioner filed with the Department of @ustice #D:@$, represented herein &y its prosecutors, pu&lic respondents, a complaint char%in% the a&ove-named officers and mem&ers of the S!B Board of Directorsand other S!B officials, private respondents, with syndicated estafa.

=or their part, private respondents filed the followin% as counter-char%es a%ainst petitioner/ #($ &lac"mail andextortion, doc"eted as .S. 'o. *33+-(31-04 and &lac"mail and perury, doc"eted as .S. 'o. *33+-(*A.

:n Decem&er ), *33+, the S>! issued a !ease and Desist :rder a%ainst S!B restrainin% it from further

offerin%, solicitin%, or otherwise sellin% its securities to the pu&lic until these have &een re%istered with the S>!.

Su&seuently, the S>! and S!B reached an amica&le settlement.

:n @anuary *3, *33), the S>! lifted its !ease and Desist :rder and approved the P million settlement offered &y S!B. 5hereupon, S!B made a commitment not to offer or sell securities without prior compliance with thereuirements of the S>!.

:n =e&ruary , *33), petitioner filed with the D:@ a complaint for violation of Section A.( of the SecuritiesRe%ulation !ode #SR!$ a%ainst private respondents.

n a Resolution dated 0pril ), *33), the D:@ dismissed petitioners complaint in .S. 'o. *33)-** #violation ofSR!$, holdin% that it should have &een filed with the S>!.

Petitioner filed with the !ourt of 0ppeals a petition for certiorari. He alle%ed that the D:@ acted with %ravea&use of discretion amountin% to lac" or excess of urisdiction in dismissin% his complaint for violation of theSR!.

He also filed with the !ourt of 0ppeals a separate petition for certiorari assailin% the D:@ Resolution dismissin%.S. 'o. *33)-** for violation of the SR!. 5his petition was doc"eted as !0-8.R. SP 'o. A+*A. Petitionerclaimed that the D:@ acted with %rave a&use of discretion tantamount to lac" or excess of urisdiction in holdin%that the complaint should have &een filed with the S>!.

:n @anuary , *331, the !ourt of 0ppeals promul%ated its Decision dismissin% the petition. t sustained therulin% of the D:@ that the case should have &een filed initially with the S>!.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration &ut it was denied in a Resolution dated May *, *331.

I))u&* =hether or not the erred in holdin+ th(t the 0O< did not commit +r(ve (buse o* discretion indismissin+ petitioners compl(int *or viol(tion o* the &$

H&l#*

5he !ourt of 0ppeals held that under Sec. 1+.( of the SR!, a criminal complaint for violation of any law or ruleadministered &y the S>! must first &e filed with the latter. f the !ommission finds that there is pro&a&le cause,then it should refer the case to the D:@. Since petitioner failed to comply with the fore%oin% proceduralreuirement, the D:@ did not %ravely a&use its discretion in dismissin% his complaint in .S. 'o. *33)-**.

http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168380_2007.html#fnt9http://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/feb2007/gr_168380_2007.html#fnt9


6/6

0 criminal char%e for violation of the Securities Re%ulation !ode is a specialiEed dispute. Hence, it must first &ereferred to an administrative a%ency of special competence, i.e., the S>!.

corpo digest parts 12 to 13

Documents