Scribd
Upload
108 views7 pages

Securities and Exchange Commission V PICOP Resources: G.R. No. 164314

Uploaded by

Tristan Hao

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PICOP Resources, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated PICOP's right to due process when it retroactively applied filing fee increases that were not properly promulgated. Specifically, the SEC failed to satisfy publication requirements for its 1990 circular that removed the fee cap, and PICOP could not have known of the fee increases when it filed in 2002 since the circular was only discovered 14 years later.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt

Securities and Exchange Commission V PICOP Resources: G.R. No. 164314

Uploaded by

Tristan Hao
108 views7 pages
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PICOP Resources, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated PICOP's right to due process when it retroactively applied filing fee increases that were not properly promulgated. Specifically, the SEC failed to satisfy publication requirements for its 1990 circular that removed the fee cap, and PICOP could not have known of the fee increases when it filed in 2002 since the circular was only discovered 14 years later.

Original Description:

admin (this is not my digest, credits to the owner)

Original Title

16_SEC v PICOP

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PICOP Resources, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated PICOP's right to due process when it retroactively applied filing fee increases that were not properly promulgated. Specifically, the SEC failed to satisfy publication requirements for its 1990 circular that removed the fee cap, and PICOP could not have known of the fee increases when it filed in 2002 since the circular was only discovered 14 years later.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
108 views7 pages

Securities and Exchange Commission V PICOP Resources: G.R. No. 164314

Uploaded by

Tristan Hao
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of PICOP Resources, finding that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) violated PICOP's right to due process when it retroactively applied filing fee increases that were not properly promulgated. Specifically, the SEC failed to satisfy publication requirements for its 1990 circular that removed the fee cap, and PICOP could not have known of the fee increases when it filed in 2002 since the circular was only discovered 14 years later.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 7

Principle of administrative construction

Securities and Exchange


Commission v PICOP Resources
G.R. No. 164314

Presented by: Tristan Hao


Facts:
• In 2002, PICOP Resources filed with SEC an application to amend its AOI,
extending its corporate existence for another 50 years
• PICOP paid P210 for the filing fee
• SEC notified them that the correct amount of filing fee is 12M or 1/5 of 1%
of its authorized capital stock of 6 billion
• PICOP sought a reduction of such amount but SEC upheld the same
assessment as it is based on RA3531
• SEC EN Banc assessed fee is based on the said RA and although the
Schedule of Revised Fees do not provide for a filing fee for extensions of
term, it does not limit SEC from imposing the prevailing fees. The amount
was reduced to 6 million, which is 1% of the authorized capital stock
Facts:
• PICOP sought a reconsideration of the En Banc ruling. Arguing that RA No.
3531 has been repealed by the Corporation Code of 1980 and Presidential
Decree 902-A. Section 139 of the Corporation Code authorizes the SEC to
collect and receive fees as authorized by law or by rules and regulation
promulgated by the SEC.
• En Banc denied once more PICOPs request to reconsider the earlier ruling
and reverted to the P12 Million assessment. It maintained that the
provision on the maximum imposable fee under the 1986 Circular has been
amended by the 1994 Circular which removed the maximum imposable
fee.
• En Banc explained that contentions that its 2001 Circular was not published
are erroneous. There was, in fact, due publication in The Manila Standard
on July 31, 2001. Accordingly, the 2001 Circular became effective on August
15, 2001. Thus, the public was properly apprised of the changes in fees
ISSUE:
• Whether the OP and CA are correct in declaring that the applicable
filing fee is P100,000.00, instead of P12 million last assessed by the
SEC En Banc
Held: Yes
• In Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. International
Communication Corporation, the Court laid the guidelines in resolving
disputes concerning the interpretation by an agency of its own rules
and regulations to wit:
• (1) Whether the delegation of power was valid;
• (2) Whether the regulation was within that delegation;
• (3) Whether it was a reasonable regulation under a due process test
Held:
• there is an evident violation of the due process requirement.
• SEC failed to satisfy the requirements for promulgation when it filed
the required copies of the said regulation at the UP Law Center only
fourteen (14) years after it was supposed to have taken effect.
• The SEC violated the due process clause insofar as it denied the public
prior notice of the regulations that were supposed to govern them.
The SEC can not wield the provisions of the 1990 Circular against
PICOP and expect its outright compliance.
• The circular was not yet effective during the time PICOP filed its
request to extend its corporate existence in 2002. In fact, it was only
discovered in 2004, fifteen (15) days before the SEC filed its second
MR
• The circular was not yet effective during the time PICOP filed its
request to extend its corporate existence in 2002. In fact, it was only
discovered in 2004, fifteen (15) days before the SEC filed its second
motion for reconsideration.

You might also like