This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-10-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Morato v. Court of Appeals,[72] the cases therein were still pending before the PED for investigation and the SEC for resolution when the Securities Regulations Code was enacted. The case before the SEC involved an intra-corporate dispute, while the subject matter of the other case investigated by the PED involved the schemes, devices, and violations of pertinent rules and laws of the company's board of directors. The enactment of the Securities Regulations Code did not result in the dismissal of the cases; rather, this Court ordered the transfer of one case to the proper regional trial court and the SEC to continue with the investigation of the other case. | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On March 30, 1998, petitioners filed a "Motion to Suspend Proceedings and/or Consolidation of Cases" in PED Case No. 98-2231 (CSI Case No. 97-11-31), alleging that the issue pertaining to the increase of TF Ventures Inc.'s capital stock had already been pleaded and raised in Matsuura's "Answer with Counterclaim" in SEC Case No. 10-97-5778.[7] This motion was denied for lack of merit on April 27, 1998.[8] Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the SEC en banc which, on September 11, 1998, dismissed the same and denied the consolidation of cases.[9] Not content, petitioners sought relief from the Court of Appeals, which denied their petition for review.[10] The matter was elevated to this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 141510 (TF Ventures, Inc., Manuel L. Morato, Antonio L. Tan, Jr., Truman E. Becker and Jose Thomas D. Beldia versus the Court of Appeals, Hon. Simeon P. Baldillo and Yoshitsugu Matsuura), and is now awaiting resolution.[11] | |||||
|
2004-06-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| [b]esides, the SEC Case No. 10-97-5778 is a PREJUDICIAL QUESTION to the matter now undertaken by this Office (PED Case No. 98-2231 and CSI Case No. 97-11-31) [, and] considering that Mr. Matsuura's accusatorial stance carries with it the penal sanction, if warranted, it is now time to observe the proper procedural rules without sacrificing the substantial rights of the parties;[17] Petitioners are even more assertive in their petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 141510, in which they repeatedly characterize PED Case No. 98-2231 as being identical with SEC-SICD Case No. 10-97-5778.[18] | |||||