VOL.

358, JUNE 6, 2001 479

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

*
G.R. No. 138949. June 6, 2001.

UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
respondent.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); Section 5 (a) (3)

of the Revised Securities Act does not state or even imply that
petitioner as a listed corporation is exempt from complying with
the reports required by the assailed Revised Securities Act (RSA).
—This provision exempts from registration the securities issued
by banking or financial institutions mentioned in the law.
Nowhere does it state or even imply that petitioner, as a listed
corporation, is exempt from complying with the reports required
by the assailed RSA Implementing Rules.
Same; Petitioner must adhere not only to banking and other
allied special laws, but also to the rules promulgated by
respondent SEC.—It must be emphasized that petitioner is a
commercial banking corporation listed in the stock exchange.
Thus, it must adhere not only to banking and other allied special
laws, but also to the rules promulgated by Respondent SEC, the
government entity tasked not only with the enforcement of the
Revised Securities Act, but also with the supervision of all
corporations, partnerships or associations which are grantees of
government-issued primary franchises and/or licenses or permits
to operate in the Philip-pines.
Same; Petitioner, as a bank, is primarily subject to the control
of the BSP, and as a corporation trading its securities in the stock
market, it is under the supervision of the SEC.—That petitioner is
under the supervision of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
and the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE) does not exempt it from
complying with the continuing disclosure requirements embodied
in the assailed Rules. Petitioner, as a

_______________
 * THIRD DIVISION.

480

480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange

Commission

bank, is primarily subject to the control of the BSP; and as a

corporation trading its securities in the stock market, it is under
the supervision of the SEC. It must be pointed out that even the
PSE is under the control and supervision of respondent. There is
no over-supervision here. Each regulating authority operates
within the sphere of its powers. That stringent requirements are
imposed is understandable, considering the paramount
importance given to the interests of the investing public.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Macalino and Associates for petitioner.
     The Solicitor General for respondent.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

The mere fact that petitioner, in regard to its banking

functions, is already subject to the supervision of the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas does not exempt the former
from reasonable disclosure regulations issued by the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). These
regulations—imposed on petitioner as a banking
institution listed in the stock market—are meant to assure
full, fair and accurate information for the protection of
investors. Imposing such regulations is a function within
the jurisdiction of the SEC.

The Case
1
Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules2
of Court, challenging the November 16,
1998 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP
No. 48002. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision
reads as follows:
“GIVEN THE FOREGOING, the assailed Orders dated November
5, 1997 and April 14, 1998 are hereby AFFIRMED, with the
MODIFICA-

___________________

1 Rollo, pp. 11-27.

2 Ibid., pp. 30-39. Penned by Justice Ramon A. Barcelona with the concurrence
of Justices Arturo B. Buena (Division chairman then and now an associate justice
of this Court) and Demetrio G. Demetria (member).

481

VOL. 358, JUNE 6, 2001 481

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

TION that petitioner is assessed a single fine of FIFTY

THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS plus FIVE HUNDRED
(P500.00) PESOS beginning
3
July 21, 1997, for each day of
continuing violation.”
4
Likewise assailed is the May 31, 1999 CA Resolution,
which denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.

The Facts

The court a quo summarized the antecedents of the case as

follows:

“Records show that on April 4, 1997, petitioner, through its

General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, sought the opinion of
Chairman Perfecto Yasay, Jr. of respondent Commission as to the
applicability and coverage of the Full Material Disclosure Rule on
banks, contending that said rules, in effect, amend Section 5 (a)
(3) of the Revised Securities Act which exempts securities issued
or guaranteed by banking institutions from the registration
requirement provided by Section 4 of the same Act. (Annex “C,” p.
20, Rollo.)
“In reply thereto, Chairman Yasay, in a letter dated April 8,
1997, informed petitioner that while the requirements of
registration do not apply to securities of banks which are exempt
under Section 5(a) (3) of the Revised Securities Act, however,
banks with a class of securities listed for trading on the Philippine
Stock Exchange, Inc. are covered by certain Revised Securities
Act Rules governing the filing of various reports with respondent
Commission, i.e., (1) Rule 11(a)-l requiring the filing of Annual,
Quarterly, Current, Predecessor and Successor Reports; (2) Rule
34-(a)-l requiring submission of Proxy Statements; and (3) Rule
34-(c)-l requiring submission of Information Statements, among
others. (Annexes D, P, U, Rollo.)
“Not satisfied, petitioner, per letter dated April 30, 1997,
informed Chairman Yasay that they will refer the matter to the
Philippine Stock Exchange for clarification. (Annex E, p. 22,
Rollo.)
“On May 9, 1997, respondent Commission, through its Money
Market Operations Department Director, wrote petitioner,
reiterating its previous position that petitioner is not exempt from
the filing of certain reports. The letter further stated that the
Revised Securities Act Rule 11

____________________

3 Rollo, p. 39.
4 Ibid., pp. 41-42.

482

482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

(a) requires the submission of reports necessary for full, fair and
accurate disclosure to the investing public, and not the
registration of its shares. (Annex F, p. 23, Rollo.)
“On July 17, 1997, respondent Commission wrote petitioner,
enjoining the latter to show cause why it should not be penalized
for its failure to submit a Proxy/Information Statement in
connection with its annual meeting held on May 23, 1997, in
violation of respondent Commission’s ‘Full Material Disclosure
Rule.’ (Annex 6, p. 24, Rollo.)
“Failing to respond to the aforesaid communication, petitioner
was given a ‘2nd Show Cause with Assessment’ by respondent
Commission on July 21, 1997. Petitioner was then assessed a fine
of P50,000.00 plus P500.00 for every day that the report [was] not
filed, or a total of P91,000.00 as of July 21, 1997. Petitioner was
likewise advised by respondent Commission to submit the
required reports and settle the assessment, or submit the case to
a formal hearing. (Annex H, p. 25, Rollo.)
“On August 18, 1997, petitioner wrote respondent Commission
disputing the assessment. (Annex I, pp. 26-27, Rollo.)
“Thus, on November 5, 1997, respondent issued the assailed
Order, the dispositive portion of which provides:

“In view of the foregoing, the appeal filed by the Union Bank of the
Philippines is hereby denied. The penalty imposed in the amount of
P91,000.00 as of July 21, 1997, for failure to file SEC Form 11-A excludes
the fine accruing after the cut-off date until the final submission of the
report. Further, the amount of P50,000.00 shall be collected for the
violation of RSA Rule 34(a)-1 or Rule 34 (c)(l).” (p. 17, Rollo)

“Petitioner sought a reconsideration thereof which was denied

by respondent Commission per assailed Order dated April 14,
1998, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“There being no new matters raised in the motion for reconsideration to

overcome the denial of the Appeal by the Commission En Banc in its
Order of November 5, 1997, and considering that the reasons advanced
are [a] mere rehash of its defenses duly addressed in the Appeal, the
5

Motion for Reconsideration is hereby, DENIED, (p. 19, Rollo).”

_________________

5 CA Decision; SC rollo, pp. 30-32.

483

VOL. 358, JUNE 6, 2001 483

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

Petitioner then elevated its case to the Court of Appeals

which, as already stated, affirmed the questioned Orders.

The CA Ruling

In its well-written 10-page Decision, the Court of Appeals

cited the expertise of Respondent SEC on matters within
the ambit of the latter’s mandate, as follows:

“To begin with, it is already well-settled that the construction

given to a statute by an administrative agency charged with the
interpretation and application of that statute is entitled to great
respect and should be accorded great weight by the courts, unless
such construction is clearly shown to be in sharp conflict with the
governing statute or the Constitution and other laws. (Nestlé
Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 203 SCRA 504 [1991], at
page 510) The rationale for this rule relates not only to the
emergence of the multifarious needs of a modern or modernizing
society and the establishment of diverse administrative agencies
for addressing and satisfying those needs; it also relates to
accumulation of experience and growth of specialized capabilities
by the administrative agency charged with implementing a
particular statute. (Nestlé Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
ibid., at pp. 510-511)
“In this regard, the Supreme Court, in Philippine Stock
Exchange v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al, G.R. No.
125469, October 27, 1998, already upheld the power of respondent
Securities and Exchange Commission to promulgate rules and
regulations, as it may consider appropriate, for the enforcement of
the Revised Securities Act and other pertinent laws. Thus,
pursuant to their regulatory authority, respondent Securities and
Exchange Commission adopted the policy of ‘full material
disclosure’ where all companies, listed or applying for listing, are
required to divulge truthfully and accurately, all material
information about themselves and the securities they sell, for the
protection of the investing public, and under pain of
administrative, criminal and civil sanctions. While the
employment of the ‘full material disclosure’ policy is sanctioned
and recognized by the laws, nonetheless, the Revised Securities
Act sets substantial and procedural standards which a proposed
issuer of securities must satisfy.
“Moreover and perhaps most importantly, the construction
given by respondent Commission on the scope of application of the
‘Full Material Disclosure’ policy permits greater opportunity for
respondent Commission to implement [its] statutory mandate of
protecting the investing public by

484

484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

requiring public issuers of securities to inform the public6 of the

true financial conditions and prospects of the corporation.”

The court a quo stressed that Rules 11(a)-1, 34(a)-l, and

34(c)-l were issued by respondent to implement the Revised
Securities Act (RSA). They do not require the registration
of petitioner’s securities; thus, it cannot be said that the
SEC amended Section 5(a) 7
(3) of the said Act.
Hence, this Petition.

Issues

Petitioner submits for our resolution the following issues:

“A. Whether or not petitioner is required to comply

with the respondent SEC’s full disclosure rules.
“B. Whether or not the SEC’s full disclosure rules [are]
contrary to and effectively [amend] section 5(a)(3) of
the Revised Securities Act.
“C. Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals
gravely erred in holding that petitioner violated
 three (3) Rules, namely: Rule 11(A)-1, Rule 34(A)-1
and Rule 34(C)-1 of the full disclosure rule.
“D. Whether or not Respondent Court of Appeals erred
in affirming with modification the imposition of
excessive fines
8
in violation of the Philippine
Constitution.”

In the main, the Court will determine (1) the applicability

of RSA Implementing Rules 11(a)-1, 34(a)-1 and 34(c)-l to
petitioner; and (2) the propriety of the fine imposed upon
the latter.

____________________

6 CA Decision, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 33-34.

7 The case was deemed submitted for decision on April 17, 2000, upon
receipt by this Court of respondent’s Memorandum signed by Solicitor
General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Mariano M.
Martinez, and Associate Solicitor Olivia V. Non. Petitioner’s
Memorandum, signed by Attys. Fe B. Macalino and Venus T. Buado of
Macalino and Associates, was received by the Court on January 27, 2000.
8 Petitioner’s Memorandum, pp. 4-5; rollo, pp. 123-124.

485

VOL. 358, JUNE 6, 2001 485

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition is not meritorious.

First Issue:
Applicability of the Assailed RSA
Implementing Rules

Because its securities are exempt from the registration

requirements under Section 5(a)(3) of the Revised
Securities Act, petitioner argues that it is not covered by
RSA Implementing Rule ll(a)-l, which requires the filing of
annual, quarterly, current predecessor and successor
reports; Rule 34(a)-l, which mandates the filing of proxy
statements and forms of proxy; and Rule 34(c)-l, which
obligates the submission of information statements.
We do not agree. Section 5(a) (3) of the said Act reads:
“Sec. 5. Exempt Securities.—(a) Except as expressly provided, the
requirement of registration under subsection (a) of Section four of
this Act shall not apply to any of the following classes of
securities:
x x x      x x x      x x x
(3) Any security issued or guaranteed by any banking
institution authorized to do business in the Philippines, the
business of which is substantially confined to banking, or a
financial institution licensed to engage in quasi-banking, and is
supervised by the Central Bank.”

This provision exempts from registration the securities

issued by banking or financial institutions mentioned in
the law. Nowhere does it state or even imply that
petitioner, as a listed corporation, is exempt from
complying with the reports required by the assailed RSA
Implementing Rules. Worth repeating is the CA’s
disquisition on the matter, which we quote:

“However, the exemption from the registration requirement

enjoyed by petitioner does not necessarily connote that [it is]
exempted from the other reportorial requirements. Having
confined the exemption enjoyed by petitioner merely to the initial
requirement of registration of securities for public offering, and
not [to] the subsequent filing of various periodic reports,
respondent Commission, as the regulatory agency, is able to
exercise its power of supervision and control over corporations
and over the

486

486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

securities market as a whole. Otherwise, the objectives of the ‘Full

Material Disclosure’ policy would be defeated since petitioner
corporation and its dealings would be totally beyond
9
the reach of
respondent Commission and the investing public.”

It must be emphasized
10
that petitioner is a commercial
banking corporation listed in the stock exchange. Thus, it
must adhere not only to banking and other allied special
laws, but also to the rules promulgated by Respondent
SEC, the government entity tasked not 11only with the
enforcement of the Revised Securities Act, but also with
the supervision of all corporations, partnerships or
associations which are grantees of government-issued
primary franchises
12
and/or licenses or permits to operate in
the Philippines.
RSA Rules 11(a)-l, 34(a)-l and 34(c)-l require the
submission of certain reports to ensure full, fair and
accurate disclosure of information for the protection of the
investing public. These Rules were issued by respondent
pursuant13to the authority conferred upon it by Section 3 of
the RSA.

__________________

9 CA Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 37.

10 Under Section 7 of the General Banking Act (Republic Act No. 337 as
amended), domestic banking institutions, except building and loan
associations, shall be organized in the form of stock corporations.
11 Sec. 3, Revised Securities Act.
12 Section 3, Presidential Decree No. 902-A, which reads:

“SEC. 3. The Commission shall have absolute jurisdiction, supervision and control
over all corporations, partnerships or associations who are grantees of primary
franchises and/or license or permit issued by the government to operate in the
Philippines; and in the exercise of its authority, it shall have the power to enlist
the aid and support of and to deputize any and all enforcement agencies of the
government, civil or military as well as any private institution, corporation, firm,
association or person.”

13 This provision reads:

“SEC. 3. Administrative Agency.—This Act shall be administered by the

Commission which shall continue to have the organization, powers and functions
provided by Presidential Decrees Numbered 902-A, 1653, 1758 and Executive
Order No. 708. The Commission shall, except as otherwise expressly provided,
have the power to

487

VOL. 358, JUNE 6, 2001 487

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

The said Rules do not amend Section 5 (a) (3) of the

Revised Securities Act, because they do not revoke or
amend the exemption from registration of the securities
enumerated thereunder. They are reasonable regulations
imposed upon petitioner as a banking corporation trading
its securities in the stock market.
That petitioner is under the supervision of the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Philippine Stock
Exchange (PSE) does not exempt it from complying with
the continuing disclosure requirements embodied in the
assailed Rules. Petitioner, as a bank, is primarily subject to
the control of the BSP; and as a corporation trading its
securities in the stock market, it is under the supervision of
the SEC. It must be pointed out that even the14 PSE is under
the control and supervision of respondent. There is no
over-supervision here. Each regulating authority operates
within the sphere of its powers. That stringent
requirements are imposed is understandable, considering
the paramount importance given to the interests of the
investing public.
Otherwise stated, the mere fact that in regard to its
banking functions, petitioner is already subject to the
supervision of the BSP does not exempt the former from
reasonable disclosure regulations issued by the SEC. These
regulations are meant to assure full, fair and accurate
disclosure of information for the protection of investors in
the stock market. Imposing such regulations is a function
within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Since petitioner opted to
trade its shares in the exchange, then it must abide by the
reasonable rules imposed by the SEC.

Second Issue:
Propriety of Fine Imposed

Contending that both respondent and the CA erred in

imposing an excessive fine upon it, petitioner complains
that it was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding
the matter. promulgate such rules and regulations as it
may consider for the enforcement of the provisions hereof.”

_________________

14 Philippine Stock Exchange, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 281 SCRA 232,

October 27, 1997.

488

488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Securities and Exchange
Commission

It bears stressing that the fine imposed upon petitioner is

sanctioned by Section 46(b) of the RSA, which reads as
follows:

“Sec. 46. Administrative sanctions.—If, after proper notice and

hearing, the Commission finds that there is a violation of this Act,
its rules, or its orders or that any registrant has, in a registration
statement and its supporting papers and other reports required
by law or rules to be filed with the Commission, made any untrue
statement of a material fact, or omitted to state any material fact
required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements
therein not misleading, or refused to permit any lawful
examination into its affairs, it shall, in its discretion, impose any
or all of the following sanctions:
x x x      x x x      x x x
(b) A fine of no less than two hundred (P200.00) pesos nor more
than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos plus not more than five
hundred (P500.00) pesos for each day of continuing violation.”

Petitioner complied with RSA Rule 11(a)-l on April 30,

1998. To date, it still has not complied with either RSA
Rule 34(a)-l or Rule 34(c)-l. That there was a failure to
submit the required reports on time is evident in the
present case. Thus, respondent was justified in imposing a
fine upon it.
We reject the contention of petitioner that it was not
heard on the matter of the fine imposed. The latter was
assessed after the former had failed to respond
15
to the SEC’s
first show-cause16 letter dated June 17, 1997. In its August
18, 1997 letter, petitioner sought before the SEC en banc
the nullification of the fine. The matter was raised to the
appellate court, which then considered it. Clearly then,
petitioner satisfied the essence
17
of due process—notice and
opportunity to be heard. That it received adverse rulings
from both respondent and the CA does not mean that its
right to be heard was discarded.

____________________

15 Respondent SEC’s July 21, 1997 “2nd Show-Cause with Assessment”;

rollo, p. 48.
16 Rollo, pp. 49-50.
17 Fabella v. Court of Appeals, 282 SCRA 256, November 28, 1997.

489

VOL. 358, JUNE 6, 2001 489

Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Fernandez

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED, and the

assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
           Melo (Chairman), Vitug, Gonzaga-Reyes and
Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment affirmed.

Note.—Securities and Exchange Commission can

compel Philippine National Construction Corporation to
hold a stockholders meeting for the purpose of electing
members of the latter’s board of directors. (Philippine
National Construction Corporation vs. Pabion, 320 SCRA
188 [1999])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.