G.R. No. 198444. September 4, 2013.

CITIBANK N.A. AND THE CITIGROUP PRIVATE BANK,

petitioners, vs. ESTER H. TANCO-GABALDON, ARSENIO
TANCO & THE HEIRS OF KU TIONG LAM, respondents.

G.R. Nos. 198469-70. September 4, 2013.*

CAROL LIM, petitioner, vs. ESTER H. TANCO-
GABALDON, ARSENIO TANCO & THE HEIRS OF KU
TIONG LAM, respondents.

Criminal Law; Prescription of Offenses; In Panaguiton, Jr. v.

Department of Justice, 571 SCRA 540 (2008), the Supreme Court
expressly ruled that Act No. 3326 is the law applicable to offenses
under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive
periods.·Given the absence of a prescriptive period for the
enforcement of the criminal liability in violations of the SRC, Act
No. 3326 now comes into play. Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department of
Justice, 571 SCRA 549 (2008), expressly ruled that Act No. 3326 is
the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do
not provide their own prescriptive periods. Section 1 of Act
No. 3326 provides: Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless
otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by a fine
or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b) after
four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one
month, but less than two years; (c) after eight years for those
punished by imprisonment for two years or more, but less than six
years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offense
punished by imprisonment for six years or more, except the
crime of treason, which shall prescribe after twenty years.
Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after
two months.
Same; Same; Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

173
 VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 173

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.·Hand in hand
with Section 1, Section 2 of Act No. 3326 states that „prescription
shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the
discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.‰ In Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr., 674
SCRA 492 (2012), the Court ruled that Section 2 provides two rules
for determining when the prescriptive period shall begin to run:
first, from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, if
such commission is known; and second, from its discovery, if not
then known, and the institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment.
Administrative Law; Laches; Words and Phrases; Laches has
been defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due
diligence, could or should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to
a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
abandoned or declined to assert it.·Laches has been defined as the
failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of
time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should
have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that the
party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to assert
it.
Same; Same; It is a well-settled principle of law that laches is a
recourse in equity, which is, applied only in the absence of statutory
law.·Section 54 of the SRC provides for the administrative
sanctions to be imposed against persons or entities violating the
Code, its rules or SEC orders. Just as the SRC did not provide a
prescriptive period for the filing of criminal actions, it likewise
omitted to provide for the period until when complaints for
administrative liability under the law should be initiated. On this
score, it is a well-settled principle of law that laches is a recourse in
equity, which is, applied only in the absence of statutory law. And
though laches applies even to imprescriptible actions, its elements
must be proved positively. Ultimately, the question of laches is
addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an
equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable
considerations.

174

174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

PETITIONS for review on certiorari of a resolution of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Angara, Abello, Concepcion, Regala & Cruz for
petitioners Citibank, N.A., et al.
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako Law Offices for
petitioner C. Lim.
Soriano, Julian & Partners Law Offices for
respondents.

REYES, J.:
These consolidated cases arose from the same
antecedent facts.
On September 21, 2007, Ester H. Tanco-Gabaldon
(Gabaldon), Arsenio Tanco (Tanco) and the Heirs of Ku
Tiong Lam (Lam) (respondents) filed with the Securities
and Exchange CommissionÊs Enforcement and Prosecution
Department1 (SEC-EPD) a complaint for violation of the
Revised Securities Act (RSA) and the Securities Regulation
Code (SRC) against petitioners Citibank N.A. (Citibank)
and its officials,2 Citigroup Private Bank (Citigroup) and
its officials,3 and petitioner Carol Lim (Lim), who is
CitigroupÊs Vice-

_______________
1 Formerly the Compliance and Enforcement Department.
2 Included as respondents were CitibankÊs Country Manager Mark
Jones and its Resident Agent Umesh Patel.
3 Citigroup officials who were included as respondents were
CitigroupÊs Hong Kong Investment Center head Sam Tse, Akbar A. Shah
who is the Managing Director of Global Market Manager (Philippines)
and Head of CitigroupÊs Philippines team, Vice-President and CitigroupÊs
former Global Market Manager (Philippines) Pakorn Boonyakurkul,
Vice-President and CitigroupÊs Country Manager Richard J. Smith.

175

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 175

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

President and Director. In their Complaint,4 the

respondents alleged that Gabaldon, Tanco and Lam were
joint account holders of petitioner Citigroup. Sometime in
March 2000, the respondents met with petitioner Lim, who
„induced‰ them into signing a subscription agreement for
the purchase of USD 2,000,000.00 worth of Ceres II
Finance Ltd. Income Notes. In September of the same year,
they met again with Lim for another investment proposal,
this time for the purchase of USD 500,000.00 worth of
Aeries Finance II Ltd. Senior Subordinated Income Notes.
In a January 2003 statement issued by the Citigroup, the
respondents learned that their investments declined, until
their account was totally wiped out. Upon verification with
the SEC, they learned that the Ceres II Finance Ltd. Notes
and the Aeries Finance II Ltd. Notes were not duly
registered securities. They also learned that Ceres II
Finance Ltd., Aeries Finance II Ltd. and the petitioners,
among others, are not duly-registered security issuers,
brokers, dealers or agents.
Hence, the respondents prayed in their complaint that:
(1) the petitioners be held administratively liable;5 (2) the
peti-

_______________
4 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 146-187; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70),
pp. 134-175.
5 For violation of the following: (1) Section 4(a), RSA and Section
8(8.1), SRC for offering and selling unregistered securities; (2) Section
19, RSA and Section 28(28.1) and (28.2), SRC for engaging in the
business of selling securities in the Philippines, as broker or dealer,
without being registered and for employing unregistered salesmen or
agents; (3) Section 13 (a)(2), RSA and Section 57(57.1)(b), SRC for
offering and selling unregistered and worthless securities by means of
written/oral communication, which include untrue statements/omitting
material facts; (4) Section 29, RSA and Section 26, SRC for offering and
selling unregistered and worthless securities through fraudulent means;
(5) Section 44, RSA and Section 51(51.1), (51.2), (51.4) and (51.5), SRC for
aiding and abetting the sale of unregistered and worthless securities in
the Philippines; and (6) Section 23, RSA and Section 48, SRC for
extending credits

176

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

tioners be liable to pay an administrative fine pursuant to

Section 54(ii), SRC; (3) the petitionersÊ existing
registration/s or secondary license/s to act as a
broker/dealer in securities, government securities eligible
dealer, investment adviser of an investment
house/underwriter of securities and transfer agent be
revoked; and (4) criminal complaints against the
petitioners be filed and endorsed to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for investigation.6
Petitioners Citibank and Citigroup claimed that they did
not receive a copy of the complaint and it was only after the
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) wrote them on October
26, 2007 that they were furnished a copy. They replied to
the BSP disclaiming any participation by the Citibank or
its officers on the transactions and products complained of.
Citibank and Citigroup furnished a copy of its letter to the
SEC-EPD and the respondentsÊ counsel.
On August 1, 2008, the SEC-EPD asked from the
petitioners certain documents to be submitted during a
scheduled conference, to which they complied. The
petitioners, however, reiterated its position that they are
not submitting to the jurisdiction of the SEC. The
petitioners
a
were also required to submit other documents.6-
Thereafter, in an order dated December 8, 2008, the
SEC-EPD terminated its investigation on the ground that
the respondentsÊ action has already prescribed.7 According
to the SEC-EPD, „[t]he aforesaid complaint was filed before
the [SEC-EPD] on 21 September 2007 while a similar
complaint was lodged before the [DOJ] on October 2005.
Seven (7) years

_______________
beyond the margin established by law. Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), p. 186;
Rollo (G.R. No. 198469-70), p. 173.
6 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 186-187; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70),
pp. 173-174.
6-a Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 194-195; Rollo (G.R. No. 198469-70,
pp. 208-209.
7 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 247-248.

177

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 177

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

had lapsed before the filing of the action before the SEC
while the complaint instituted before the DOJ was filed one
month after the expiration of the allowable period.‰8 It
appears that on October 24, 2005,9 the respondents had
already filed with the Mandaluyong City ProsecutorÊs
Office a complaint for violation of the RSA and SRC but it
was referred to the SEC pursuant to Baviera v. Prosecutor
Paglinawan.10
 In 2009, petitioners Citibank and Citigroup received a
copy of the respondentsÊ Notice of Appeal and
Memorandum of Appeals but the officials did not, as
according to them, the latter were not connected with
them. Citibank also alleged that they did not receive any
order to file a Reply Memorandum, in contravention of
Section 11-5, Rule XI of the 2006 SEC Rules of Procedure.
It turned out, however, that an order was issued by the
SEC, dated February 26, 2009, requiring the petitioners to
file their reply.11
On November 6, 2009, petitioners Citibank and
Citigroup received the SEC en banc Decision12 dated
October 15, 2009 reinstating the complaint and ordering
the immediate investigation of the case. Petitioner Lim,
who was then based in Hong Kong, learned of the rendition
of the SEC decision on November 20, 2009 through a
teleconference with petitioner CitibankÊs counsel.13 Thus,
petitioners Citibank and Citigroup filed a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-
G.R. SP No. 111501. Petitioner Lim filed her

_______________
8 Id., at p. 248.
9 Id., at pp. 163-164.
10 Baviera ruled that all complaints for any violation of the SRC and
its implementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC;
where the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the
complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution as
provided in Section 53.1 of the SRC; 544 Phil. 107, 119; 515 SCRA 170,
181-182 (2007).
11 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), p. 252.
12 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70), pp. 897-907.
13 Id., at p. 60.

178

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

own petition for review with the CA, docketed as CA-G.R.

SP No. 112309. These two petitions were then consolidated.
Finally, the CA rendered the Decision14 dated October 5,
2010, which provides for the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the

petition is partly GRANTED. The writ of injunction is hereby
DISSOLVED. The Securities and Exchange Commission-
Enforcement and Prosecution Department is ordered to
 proceed with its investigation with dispatch and with due
regard to the partiesÊ right to notice and hearing.
SO ORDERED.15

The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which

was denied by the CA in its Resolution16 dated August 31,
2011. The petitioners then filed the present consolidated
petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The issues raised in these petitions are: (1) whether the
criminal action for offenses punished under the SRC filed
by the respondents against the petitioners has already
prescribed; and (2) whether the filing of the action for the
petitionersÊ administrative liability is barred by laches.
It was the CAÊs view that since the SRC has no specific
provision on prescription of criminal offenses, the
applicable law is Act No. 3326.17 Under the SRC,
imprisonment of more

_______________
14 Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang, with Associate
Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring; Rollo
(G.R. No. 198444), pp. 94-121; Rollo, id., at pp. 93-120.
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), p. 120; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70), p. 119.
16 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 124-135; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70),
pp. 38-49.
17 An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin.

179

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 179

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

than six (6) years is the imposable penalty for the offenses
with which the petitioners were charged, and applying Act
No. 3326, the prescriptive period for the filing of an action
is twelve (12) years, reckoned from the time of commission
or discovery of the offense.18 The respondentsÊ filing of the
complaint with the SEC, therefore, was within the
prescriptive period.
In G.R. Nos. 198469-70, petitioner Lim share the view
of petitioners Citibank and Citigroup that Act No. 3326 is
not applicable and the SRC provides for its own
prescriptive period.19 Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 198444,
petitioners Citibank and Citigroup maintain that the CA
committed an error in applying Act No. 3326. According to
the petitioners, Section 62.2 of the SRC applies to both civil
and criminal liability. The petitioners also insist that
laches bar the investigation of the respondentsÊ complaint
against the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondents
assert, among others, the applicability of Act No. 3326.20
Ruling of the Court
Resolution of the issue raised by the petitioners call for
an examination of the pertinent provisions of the SRC,
particularly Section 62, which states:

SEC. 62. Limitation of Actions.·
62.1. No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability
created under Section 56 or 57 of this Code unless brought
within two (2) years after the discovery of the untrue
statement or the omission, or, if the action is to enforce a
liability created under Subsection 57.1(a), unless brought
within two (2) years after the violation

_______________
18 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), p. 110; Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70), p. 109.
19 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70), pp. 63-81.
20 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), pp. 595-607; id., at pp. 743-757.

180

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

upon which it is based. In no event shall any such action be

brought to enforce a liability created under Section 56 or
Subsection 57.1(a) more than five (5) years after the security
was bona fide offered to the public, or under Subsection
57.1(b) more than five (5) years after the sale.
62.2. No action shall be maintained to enforce any liability
created under any other provision of this Code unless brought
within two (2) years after the discovery of the facts
constituting the cause of action and within five (5) years after
such cause of action accrued.

Section 62 provides for two different prescriptive

periods.
Section 62.1 specifically sets out the prescriptive period
for the liabilities created under Sections 56, 57, 57.1(a) and
57.1(b). Section 56 refers to Civil Liabilities on Account of
False Registration Statement while Section 57 pertains to
Civil Liabilities on Arising in Connection with Prospectus,
Communications and Reports. Under these provisions,
enforcement of the civil liability must be brought within
two (2) years or five (5) years, as the case may be.
On the other hand, Section 62.2 provides for the
prescriptive period to enforce any liability created under
the SRC. It is the interpretation of the phrase „any
liability‰ that creates the uncertainty. Does it include both
civil and criminal liability? Or does it pertain solely to civil
liability?
In order to put said phrase in its proper perspective,
reference must be made to the rule of statutory
construction that every part of the statute must be
interpreted with reference to the context, i.e., that every
part of the statute must be considered together with the
other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of
the whole enactment.21 Section 62.2 should not be read in
isolation of the other provision included in Section 62,
particularly Section 62.1, which provides for the

_______________
21 Garcia v. Social Security Commission Legal and Collection, Social
Security System, 565 Phil. 193, 206; 540 SCRA 456, 470 (2007).

181

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 181

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

prescriptive period for the enforcement of civil liability in

cases of violations of Sections 56, 57, 57.1(a) and 57.1(b)
Moreover, it should be noted that the civil liabilities
provided in the SRC are not limited to Sections 56 and 57.
Section 58 provides for Civil Liability For Fraud in
Connection With Securities Transactions; Section 59 – Civil
Liability For Manipulation of Security Prices; Section 60 –
Civil Liability With Respect to Commodity Future
Contracts and Pre-need Plans; and Section 61 – Civil
Liability on Account of Insider Trading. Thus, bearing in
mind that Section 62.1 merely addressed the prescriptive
period for the civil liability provided in Sections 56, 57,
57.1(a) and 57.1(b), then it reasonably follows that the
other sub-provision, Section 62.2, deals with the other civil
liabilities that were not covered by Section 62.1, namely
Sections 59, 60 and 61. This conclusion is further supported
by the fact that the subsequent provision, Section 63,
explicitly pertains to the amount of damages recoverable
under Sections 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61,22 the trial court
having jurisdiction over such actions,23 the persons liable24
and the extent of their liability.25 Clearly, the intent is to
encompass in Section 62 the prescriptive periods only of the
civil liability in cases of violations of the SRC.
The CA, therefore, did not commit any error when it
ruled that „the phrase Âany liabilityÊ in subsection 62.2 can
only refer to other liabilities that are also civil in nature.
The phrase could not have suddenly intended to mean
criminal liability for this would go beyond the context of
the other provisions among which it is found.‰26
Given the absence of a prescriptive period for the
enforcement of the criminal liability in violations of the
SRC, Act No.

_______________
22 R.A. No. 8799, Sec. 63.1.
23 Id.
24 Id., Sec. 63.2.
25 Id., Sec. 63.3.
26 Rollo (G.R. Nos. 198469-70), pp. 108-109.

182

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

3326 now comes into play. Panaguiton, Jr. v. Department

of Justice27 expressly ruled that Act No. 3326 is the law
applicable to offenses under special laws which do
not provide their own prescriptive periods.28
Section 1 of Act No. 3326 provides:

Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise

provided in such acts, prescribe in accordance with the
following rules: (a) after a year for offenses punished only by
a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or
both; (b) after four years for those punished by imprisonment
for more than one month, but less than two years; (c) after
eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years
or more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years
for any other offense punished by imprisonment for six
years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall
prescribe after twenty years. Violations penalized by
municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two months.
(Emphasis ours)

Under Section 73 of the SRC, violation of its provisions

or the rules and regulations is punishable with
imprisonment of not less than seven (7) years nor more
than twenty-one (21) years. Applying Section 1 of Act No.
3326, a criminal prosecution for violations of the SRC shall,
therefore, prescribe in twelve (12) years.
Hand in hand with Section 1, Section 2 of Act No. 3326
states that „prescription shall begin to run from the day of
the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same
be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and
the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation
and punishment.‰ In Republic v. Cojuangco, Jr.29 the Court
ruled that Section 2 provides two rules for determining
when the pre-

_______________
27 G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008, 571 SCRA 549.
28 Id., at p. 558.
29 G.R. No. 139930, June 26, 2012, 674 SCRA 492.

183

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 183

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

scriptive period shall begin to run: first, from the day of the
commission of the violation of the law, if such
commission is known; and second, from its discovery, if
not then known, and the institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.30
The respondents alleged in their complaint that the
transactions occurred between September 2000, when they
purchased the Subscription Agreement for the purchase of
USD 2,000,000.00 worth of Ceres II Finance Ltd. Income
Notes, and July 31, 2003, when their Ceres II Finance Ltd.
account was totally wiped out. Nevertheless, it was only
sometime in November 2004 that the respondents
discovered that the securities they purchased were actually
worthless. Thereafter, the respondents filed on October 23,
2005 with the Mandaluyong City ProsecutorÊs Office a
complaint for violation of the RSA and SRC. In Resolution
dated July 18, 2007, however, the prosecutorÊs office
referred the complaint to the SEC.31 Finally, the
respondents filed the complaint with the SEC on
September 21, 2007. Based on the foregoing antecedents,
only seven (7) years lapsed since the respondents invested
their funds with the petitioners, and three (3) years since
the respondentsÊ discovery of the alleged offenses, that the
complaint was correctly filed with the SEC for
investigation. Hence, the respondentsÊ complaint was filed
well within the twelve (12)-year prescriptive period
provided by Section 1 of Act No. 3326.
On the issue of laches.
 _______________
30 Id., at p. 505, citing Presidential Commission on Good Government
v. Desierto, 484 Phil. 53, 60; 441 SCRA 106, 112 (2004).
31 Included in the complaint were charges for Estafa under Article
315, paragraph 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which the Mandaluyong
City ProsecutorÊs Office retained for preliminary investigation.

184

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

Petitioner Lim contends that the CA committed an error

when it did not apply the principle of laches vis-à-vis the
petitionersÊ administrative liability.32
Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a presumption that
the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned or
declined to assert it.33
Section 54 of the SRC provides for the administrative
sanctions to be imposed against persons or entities
violating the Code, its rules or SEC orders.34 Just as the
SRC did not pro-

_______________
32 Rollo (G.R. No. 198444), p. 33.
33 Insurance of the Philippine Island Corporation v. Gregorio, G.R.
No. 174104, February 14, 2011, 642 SCRA 685, 691.
34 Sec. 54. Administrative Sanctions.
54.1.  If, after due notice and hearing, the Commission finds that: (a)
There is a violation of this Code, its rules, or its orders; (b) Any
registered broker or dealer, associated person thereof has failed
reasonably to supervise, with a view to preventing violations, another
person subject to supervision who commits any such violation; (c) Any
registrant or other person has, in a registration statement or in other
reports, applications, accounts, records or documents 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,
in the case of an underwriter, has failed to conduct an inquiry with
reasonable diligence to insure that a registration statement is accurate
and complete in all material respects; or (d) Any person has refused to
permit any lawful examinations into its affairs, it shall, in its discretion,
and subject only to the limitations hereinafter prescribed, impose any or
all of the following sanctions as may be appropriate in light of the facts
and circumstances:
(i) Suspension, or revocation of any registration for the offering of
securities;
(ii)  A fine of no less than Ten Thousand pesos (P10,000.00) nor more
than One Million pesos (P1,000,000.00) plus not more than Two
Thousand pesos (P2,000.00) for each day of continuing violation;

185

VOL. 705, SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 185

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

vide a prescriptive period for the filing of criminal actions,

it likewise omitted to provide for the period until when
complaints for administrative liability under the law
should be initiated. On this score, it is a well-settled
principle of law that laches is a recourse in equity, which is,
applied only in the absence of statutory law.35 And though
laches applies even to imprescriptible actions, its elements
must be proved positively.36 Ultimately, the question of
laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and,
being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by
equitable considerations.37
In this case, records bear that immediately after the
respondents discovered in 2004 that the securities they
invested in were actually worthless, they filed on October
23, 2005 a complaint for violation of the RSA and SRC with
the Mandaluyong City ProsecutorÊs Office. It took the
prosecutor three (3) years to resolve the complaint and
refer the case to the SEC,38 in conformity with the CourtÊs
pronouncement in

_______________
(iii)  In the case of a violation of Sections 19.2, 20, 24, 26 and 27,
disqualification from being an officer, member of the Board of Directors,
or person performing similar functions, of an issuer required to file
reports under Section 17 of this Code or any other act, rule or regulation
administered by the Commission;
(iv)  In the case of a violation of Section 34, a fine of no more than
three (3) times the profit gained or loss avoided as a result of the
purchase, sale or communication proscribed by such Section; and
(v) Other penalties within the power of the Commission to impose.
35 See Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Royeca, G.R. No. 176664, July
21, 2008, 559 SCRA 207, 219.
36 Abadiano v. Martir, G.R. No. 156310, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 676,
695.
37 Id., at pp. 694-695.
 38 Included in the complaint were charges for Estafa under Article
315, paragraph 3(a) of the Revised Penal Code, which the Mandaluyong
City ProsecutorÊs Office retained for preliminary investigation.

186

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Citibank N.A. vs. Tanco-Gabalbon

Baviera39 that all complaints for any violation of the SRC

and its implementing rules and regulations should be filed
with the SEC. Clearly, the filing of the complaint with the
SEC on September 21, 2007 is not barred by laches as the
respondentsÊ judicious actions teveal otherwise.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED for lack of
merit.
SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr.

and Perlas-Bernabe,** JJ., concur.

Petitions denied.

Notes.·Laws dealing with double jeopardy or with

procedure · such as the verification of pleadings and
prejudicial questions or in this case, prescription of offenses
or the filing of affidavits of desistance by the complainant
· do not apply in the determination of a lawyerÊs
qualifications and fitness for membership in the Bar.
(Garrido vs. Garrido, 611 SCRA 508 [2010])
There is no more distinction between cases under the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) and those covered by special
laws with respect to the interruption of the period of
prescription. (People vs. Pangilinan, 672 SCRA 105 [2012])
··o0o··

_______________
39 Supra note 10.
** Acting member per Special Order No. 1529 dated August 29, 2013.

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.