Lawyerly

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

NACHURA, J.

Finvest is a stock brokerage corporation duly organized under Philippine laws and is a member of the PSE with one membership seat pledged to the latter. Armand O. Raquel-Santos (Raquel-Santos) was Finvest's President and nominee to the PSE from February 20, 1990 to July 16, 1998.[3] Annalissa Mallari (Mallari) was Finvest's Administrative Officer until December 31, 1998.[4]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Upon failure of Finvest to settle its obligations, PSE sought authority from the SEC to take over the operations of Finvest in accordance with PSE's undertaking pursuant to Section 22(a)(5)[9] of the Revised Securities Act. On July 22, 1998, SEC acted favorably on PSE's request and authorized it to take over the operations of Finvest in order to continue preserving the latter's assets. Finvest was duly informed of the SEC's decision and was advised to refrain from making any payment, delivery of securities, or selling or otherwise encumbering any of its assets without PSE's approval.[10]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Alleging that Raquel-Santos and Mallari failed to file their Answer within the reglementary period, Finvest moved for a partial judgment against them.[27] On February 4, 2000, SEC, through a Hearing Panel, rendered a Partial Judgment[28] against Raquel-Santos and Mallari, ordering them to account for the missing stock certificates and pay the damages that Finvest may sustain.

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

On June 29, 2000, the parties entered into an Agreement,[33] approved by the SEC en banc in its Order[34] of July 11, 2000, to remand the case to the Securities Investigation and Clearing Division for service of summonses to Raquel-Santos and Mallari. In turn, Raquel-Santos and Mallari agreed not to dispose of or transfer the garnished properties in the meantime, but the writs of garnishment would remain in force during the pendency of the case.

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Meanwhile, on June 5, 2000, the SEC Hearing Panel granted Finvest's motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin PSE from initiating the liquidation of Finvest and from selling its membership seat. The SEC Hearing Panel ratiocinated that PSE's plan to sell Finvest's membership seat at public auction, despite the fact that its claims against Finvest were yet to be determined in these proceedings, was reason enough for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.[35] Upon posting of the required bond, the SEC Hearing Panel issued a writ of preliminary injunction on June 21, 2000.[36]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

of garnishment may be validly issued.[37] As a result, Finvest filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to respect the SEC en banc Order dated July 11, 2000. The motions were denied by the RTC in its May 30, 2002 Order.[38] Through a petition for certiorari, the October 2, 2001 Order of the RTC was subsequently modified by the CA on December 9, 2002. The CA held that the sale of Raquel-Santos' share in Manila Golf Club was valid, subject to the outcome of the main case (Civil Case No. 00-1589). The parties were further enjoined to comply with their obligations under the July 11, 2000 Order of the SEC en banc.[39]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

of garnishment may be validly issued.[37] As a result, Finvest filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to respect the SEC en banc Order dated July 11, 2000. The motions were denied by the RTC in its May 30, 2002 Order.[38] Through a petition for certiorari, the October 2, 2001 Order of the RTC was subsequently modified by the CA on December 9, 2002. The CA held that the sale of Raquel-Santos' share in Manila Golf Club was valid, subject to the outcome of the main case (Civil Case No. 00-1589). The parties were further enjoined to comply with their obligations under the July 11, 2000 Order of the SEC en banc.[39]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

In the meantime, PSE filed a Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Reconsideration[40] on the ground that it had the legal obligation to make the appropriate recommendations to the SEC on whether or not it would be to the best interest of all concerned for Finvest to be liquidated at the soonest possible time.

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

SO ORDERED.[41]

GR No. 174986

2009-07-07

ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Notably, the Complaint did not allege that petitioner Raquel-Santos obtained from Finvest cash advances that he failed to liquidate. The alleged cash advances were disclosed to the court in the Supplemental Affidavit[66] that Mr. Ernesto Lee submitted to the court. Attached to the Supplemental Affidavit were copies of disbursement vouchers and checks representing the cash advances made by petitioner Raquel-Santos.

	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Finvest is a stock brokerage corporation duly organized under Philippine laws and is a member of the PSE with one membership seat pledged to the latter. Armand O. Raquel-Santos (Raquel-Santos) was Finvest's President and nominee to the PSE from February 20, 1990 to July 16, 1998.[3] Annalissa Mallari (Mallari) was Finvest's Administrative Officer until December 31, 1998.[4]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Upon failure of Finvest to settle its obligations, PSE sought authority from the SEC to take over the operations of Finvest in accordance with PSE's undertaking pursuant to Section 22(a)(5)[9] of the Revised Securities Act. On July 22, 1998, SEC acted favorably on PSE's request and authorized it to take over the operations of Finvest in order to continue preserving the latter's assets. Finvest was duly informed of the SEC's decision and was advised to refrain from making any payment, delivery of securities, or selling or otherwise encumbering any of its assets without PSE's approval.[10]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Alleging that Raquel-Santos and Mallari failed to file their Answer within the reglementary period, Finvest moved for a partial judgment against them.[27] On February 4, 2000, SEC, through a Hearing Panel, rendered a Partial Judgment[28] against Raquel-Santos and Mallari, ordering them to account for the missing stock certificates and pay the damages that Finvest may sustain.
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
On June 29, 2000, the parties entered into an Agreement,[33] approved by the SEC en banc in its Order[34] of July 11, 2000, to remand the case to the Securities Investigation and Clearing Division for service of summonses to Raquel-Santos and Mallari. In turn, Raquel-Santos and Mallari agreed not to dispose of or transfer the garnished properties in the meantime, but the writs of garnishment would remain in force during the pendency of the case.
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Meanwhile, on June 5, 2000, the SEC Hearing Panel granted Finvest's motion for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to enjoin PSE from initiating the liquidation of Finvest and from selling its membership seat. The SEC Hearing Panel ratiocinated that PSE's plan to sell Finvest's membership seat at public auction, despite the fact that its claims against Finvest were yet to be determined in these proceedings, was reason enough for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.[35] Upon posting of the required bond, the SEC Hearing Panel issued a writ of preliminary injunction on June 21, 2000.[36]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
of garnishment may be validly issued.[37] As a result, Finvest filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to respect the SEC en banc Order dated July 11, 2000. The motions were denied by the RTC in its May 30, 2002 Order.[38] Through a petition for certiorari, the October 2, 2001 Order of the RTC was subsequently modified by the CA on December 9, 2002. The CA held that the sale of Raquel-Santos' share in Manila Golf Club was valid, subject to the outcome of the main case (Civil Case No. 00-1589). The parties were further enjoined to comply with their obligations under the July 11, 2000 Order of the SEC en banc.[39]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
of garnishment may be validly issued.[37] As a result, Finvest filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to respect the SEC en banc Order dated July 11, 2000. The motions were denied by the RTC in its May 30, 2002 Order.[38] Through a petition for certiorari, the October 2, 2001 Order of the RTC was subsequently modified by the CA on December 9, 2002. The CA held that the sale of Raquel-Santos' share in Manila Golf Club was valid, subject to the outcome of the main case (Civil Case No. 00-1589). The parties were further enjoined to comply with their obligations under the July 11, 2000 Order of the SEC en banc.[39]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
In the meantime, PSE filed a Motion to Dissolve the Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Motion for Reconsideration[40] on the ground that it had the legal obligation to make the appropriate recommendations to the SEC on whether or not it would be to the best interest of all concerned for Finvest to be liquidated at the soonest possible time.
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
SO ORDERED.[41]
	GR No. 174986 2009-07-07	ARMAND O. RAQUEL-SANTOS v. CA NACHURA, J.
Notably, the Complaint did not allege that petitioner Raquel-Santos obtained from Finvest cash advances that he failed to liquidate. The alleged cash advances were disclosed to the court in the Supplemental Affidavit[66] that Mr. Ernesto Lee submitted to the court. Attached to the Supplemental Affidavit were copies of disbursement vouchers and checks representing the cash advances made by petitioner Raquel-Santos.

JEANET N. MANIO v. JUDGE JOSE ENER S. FERNANDO