SEC Vs IRC, Executive Summary - Cabaña, Patricia Mae H. 2A

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION vs.
INTERPORT RESOURCES
CORPORATION, et. al.
G.R. No. 135808 October 6, 2008 CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Executive Summary
Facts
SEC received reports that the Interport Resources Corporation (IRC) failed to make timely
public disclosures of its negotiations with Ganda Holdings Board (GHB) and that some of its
directors heavily traded IRC shares utilizing this material insider information. The SEC
Chairman thus issued a directive requiring IRC to submit to SEC a copy of its aforesaid MoA
with GHB and further directed all officers of the IRC to appear at a hearing before the Brokers
and Exchanges Dept (BED) of SEC to explain IRC’s failure to immediately disclose the
information as required by the Rules on Disclosure of Material Facts by Corporations Whose
Securities are Listed in Any Stock Exchange or Registered/Licensed Under the Securities Act.
The IRC sent copies of the MoA to SEC, and its directors appeared to explain before the board
IRC’s alleged failure to immediately disclose material information as required under the Rules
on Disclosure of Material Facts. After this, the SEC Chairman issued an Order finding that IRC
violated the Rules on Disclosure when it failed to make timely disclosure, and that some of the
officers and directors of IRC entered into transactions involving IRC shares in violation of Sec
30, in relation to Sec 36 of the Revised Securities Act.
This prompted IRC to file an Omnibus Motion, alleging that SEC had no authority to investigate
the subject matter, since under Sec 8 of PD 902-A, as amended by PD 1758, jurisdiction was
conferred upon the Prosecution and Enforcement Dept (PED) of SEC. It also claimed that SEC
violated their right to due process when it ordered the respondents to appear before the SEC
and show cause as to why no administrative, civil or criminal sanctions should be imposed on
them, which effectively shifted the burden of proof to the respondents.
No formal hearings were conducted in connection with the Motions, but in spite of this, SEC
disposed of the motions by issuing an Omnibus Order, which created a special investigating
panel to hear and decide the case in accordance with Rules of Practice and Procedure before
the PED, SEC; recalled the show cause orders; and denied the Motion for Continuance for lack
of merit. 
Respondents filed a petition before the CA questioning the Omnibus Orders and filed a
Supplemental Motion wherein they prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to
enjoin the SEC and its agents from investigating and proceeding with the hearing of the case
against respondents herein. In August 1998, the CA promulgated a decision, ruling there were
no implementing rules and regulations regarding disclosure, insider trading, or any of the
provisions of the Revised Securities Acts which the respondents allegedly violated. It likewise
noted that it found no statutory authority for the SEC to initiate and file any suit for civil liability
under Sections 8, 30 and 36 of the Revised Securities Act. Thus, it ruled that no civil, criminal or
administrative proceedings may possibly be held against the respondents without violating their
rights to due process and equal protection.
Issues:
1. W/N Sections 8, 30, and 36 of the Revised Securities Act require the enactment of
implementing rules and regulations to make them binding and effective- NO
2. W/N the right to cross-examination may be demanded during investigative proceedings
before the PED - NO
1 of 2
3. W/N a criminal case may still be filed against respondents despite the repeal of Sections 8,
30, and 36 of the Revised Securities Act - YES
4. W/N SEC retains the jurisdiction to investigate violations of the Revised Securities Act re-
enacted in the Securities Regulations Code despite the abolition of the PED - YES
Ruling:
1. Sections 8, 30, and 36 of the Revised Securities Act (RSA) do not require the
enactment of implementing rules and regulations to make them binding and effective.
The mere absence of implementing rules cannot effectively invalidate provisions of law, where
a reasonable construction that will support the law may be given. To rule that the absence of
implementing rules can render ineffective an act of Congress, such as the Revised Securities
Act, would empower the administrative bodies to defeat the legislative will by delaying the
implementing rules. Every law has in its favour the presumption of validity.
2. The right to cross-examination is not absolute and cannot be demanded during

investigative proceedings before the PED.
Section 4, Rule 1 of the PED Rules of Practice and Procedure, categorically states that the
proceedings before the PED are summary in nature, not necessarily adhering to or following the
technical rules of evidence obtaining in the courts of law. A formal hearing therefore was not
mandatory and it was well within the discretion of the Hearing Officer to determine whether
there was a need for a formal hearing. Since the holding of a hearing before the PED is
discretionary, then the right to cross-examination could not have been demanded by either
party.
3. The Securities Regulation Code (SRC) did not repeal Sections 8, 30, and 36 of the
Revised Securities Act since said provisions were re- enacted in the new law.
When the repealing law punishes the act previously penalized under the old law, the act
committed before the re-enactment continues to be an offense and pending cases are not
affected. Section 8 of the RSA, which previously provided for the registration of securities and
the information that needs to be included in the registration statements, was expanded under
Section 12 of the Securities Regulations Code. Section 30 of the RSA has also been re-enacted
as Section 27 of SRC, as it still penalizes an insider’s misuse of material and non-public
information about the issuer, for the purpose of protecting public investors. Section 23 of SRC
was practically lifted from Sec 36 of RSA. The legislature had not intended to deprive the courts
of their authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law that was repealed.
4. The SEC retained the jurisdiction to investigate violations of the Revised Securities
Act, re-enacted in the Securities Regulations Code, despite the abolition of the PED.
Section 53 of the SRC provides that criminal complaints for violations of rules and regulations
enforced or administered by SEC shall be referred to the DOJ for preliminary investigation,
while the SEC nevertheless retains limited investigatory powers. Therefore, SEC may still
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions under Sec 54.
2 of 2

SEC Vs IRC, Executive Summary - Cabaña, Patricia Mae H. 2A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEC Vs IRC, Executive Summary - Cabaña, Patricia Mae H. 2A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEC Vs IRC, Executive Summary - Cabaña, Patricia Mae H. 2A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION vs.

2. The right to cross-examination is not absolute and cannot be demanded during

You might also like