The Supreme Court, in Union Bank v. Concepcion, affirmed the continuing jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) over liquidation proceedings of corporations that initially filed for suspension of payments before June 30, 2000. This ruling clarifies that even with the passage of the Securities Regulation Code transferring insolvency jurisdiction to Regional Trial Courts, the SEC retains authority over cases already pending before it. The decision underscores the principle that once jurisdiction is acquired, it generally persists until a case is fully resolved, including liquidation, ensuring consistent and efficient resolution of corporate rehabilitation matters.

From Suspension to Liquidation: When Does the SEC’s Oversight End?

This case revolves around the financial difficulties of the EYCO Group of Companies (EYCO) and the legal battles that ensued following its petition for suspension of payments. In September 1997, EYCO sought relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), aiming to suspend payments due to liquidity issues, despite possessing assets sufficient to cover its debts. This action initiated SEC Case No. 09-97-5764. Union Bank, a creditor of EYCO, pursued a separate collection suit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, leading to conflicting orders and jurisdictional questions. The central legal question became whether the SEC retained jurisdiction over EYCO’s liquidation proceedings, even after insolvency jurisdiction was transferred to the RTC, and whether the SEC-appointed liquidator had the right to intervene in Union Bank’s collection suit.

Union Bank argued that EYCO’s insolvency transferred jurisdiction to the RTC under the Insolvency Law, rendering the SEC’s actions, including the appointment of Danilo Concepcion as liquidator, invalid. The bank contended that the SEC lacked the authority to oversee the liquidation and dissolution of EYCO, advocating for the RTC to handle the proceedings under the Insolvency Law. Union Bank also challenged Concepcion’s right to intervene in the civil case, asserting he lacked a legitimate legal interest in the matter. Furthermore, the bank questioned the propriety of Concepcion’s certiorari petition, arguing that the denial of intervention should have been appealed, not challenged through a special civil action.

The Supreme Court disagreed with Union Bank’s arguments, firmly establishing that the SEC maintained jurisdiction over EYCO’s liquidation. The Court emphasized that EYCO’s initial petition for suspension of payments, filed before the jurisdictional shift, fell under the SEC’s purview as stipulated in Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, as amended. The relevant provision, Section 5(d) of P.D. No. 902-A, grants the SEC exclusive and original jurisdiction over petitions for suspension of payments. Specifically, the court referenced subsection 5.2 of R.A. No. 8799, which provides:

5.2. The [Securities and Exchange] Commission’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of [P.D.] No. 902-A is hereby transferred to the appropriate [RTC]: Provided that the Supreme Court … may designate the [RTC] branches that shall exercise jurisdiction over these cases. xxx The Commission shall retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases filed as of 30 June 2000 until finally disposed.

Building on this principle, the Court noted that since EYCO’s petition was pending before June 30, 2000, the SEC’s jurisdiction continued until the case’s final disposition, including the liquidation process. This continuity ensures that the SEC could properly oversee the liquidation process, even after ordering EYCO’s insolvency. The Court cited Ching v. LBP, reinforcing the SEC’s power to declare a corporation insolvent as an incident to its existing jurisdiction over suspension of payment petitions. The SEC’s order to remand the case to the Hearing Panel for liquidation and dissolution underscored its awareness of this continuity.

Moreover, the Supreme Court acknowledged its prior ruling in G.R. No. 131729, which rejected Union Bank’s claim that EYCO’s alleged insolvency stripped the SEC of jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that the nature of the action and the relief sought at the petition’s inception determine jurisdiction. Therefore, even if EYCO was later found to be insolvent, the SEC’s jurisdiction, established initially, remained intact. Addressing Concepcion’s right to intervene, the Court found that as the SEC-appointed liquidator, he had a direct legal interest in protecting EYCO’s assets for the benefit of its creditors.

The Court referenced Rule 19, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, outlining the criteria for intervention:

SECTION. 1. Who may Intervene.- A person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof, may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. The court shall consider whether or not the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties, and whether or not the intervenor’s right may be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

The Court reasoned that Concepcion’s role as liquidator-trustee positioned him to be directly affected by the distribution of attached properties. Preventing his intervention would prejudice the liquidation process and allow Union Bank to unfairly prioritize its claims over other creditors. Finally, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision to allow Concepcion’s petition for certiorari, despite the availability of an appeal. The Court acknowledged that certiorari is appropriate when an appeal does not offer a speedy and adequate remedy, and when the lower court acts oppressively.

In this case, the Court found that the RTC’s actions, including disregarding the pending SEC petition and questioning the SEC appointment, justified the use of certiorari. The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC’s actions effectively interfered with and invalidated the SEC’s appointment, over which it had no jurisdiction. This decision reinforces the principle that once a court or body acquires jurisdiction, it cannot be ousted by subsequent events or legislation unless explicitly stated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the SEC retained jurisdiction over the liquidation of EYCO, given that insolvency proceedings were transferred to the RTC by R.A. No. 8799. The Court also addressed whether the SEC-appointed liquidator could intervene in a collection suit against EYCO.
Why did Union Bank file a case against EYCO in the RTC?	Union Bank, a creditor of EYCO, filed a collection suit in the RTC to recover the sums owed to them by EYCO. This was done while EYCO’s petition for suspension of payments was still pending before the SEC.
What is a petition for suspension of payments?	A petition for suspension of payments is a legal remedy sought by a corporation facing liquidity issues, seeking temporary relief from its debt obligations. The aim is to allow the company to reorganize its finances and negotiate with creditors.
What role did Danilo Concepcion play in this case?	Danilo Concepcion was appointed by the SEC as the liquidator of EYCO. He sought to intervene in Union Bank’s collection suit to protect the assets of EYCO for the benefit of all creditors.
What is the significance of the date June 30, 2000, in this case?	June 30, 2000, is the cutoff date established by R.A. No. 8799 for the SEC to retain jurisdiction over pending suspension of payments/rehabilitation cases. Cases filed before this date remained under the SEC’s jurisdiction until fully resolved.
What is intervention in a legal context?	Intervention is a procedure allowing a third party with a legal interest in a case to become a party to the suit. The intervenor seeks to protect their rights or claims that may be affected by the outcome of the original case.
What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the SEC’s jurisdiction?	The Supreme Court affirmed that the SEC retained jurisdiction over EYCO’s liquidation because the petition for suspension of payments was filed before June 30, 2000. This jurisdiction continued until the final disposition of the case, including liquidation and dissolution.
Why was certiorari the appropriate remedy in this case?	Certiorari was deemed appropriate because the RTC acted in an oppressive manner by disregarding the pending SEC petition and questioning the SEC’s appointment of the liquidator. Appeal was not considered a speedy and adequate remedy under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union Bank v. Concepcion provides critical guidance on the scope and duration of the SEC’s jurisdiction in corporate rehabilitation cases. This ruling ensures that corporations undergoing liquidation under the SEC’s supervision receive consistent and comprehensive oversight, even amidst jurisdictional shifts. This case is a reminder of the importance of understanding jurisdictional rules and transition periods during legal and regulatory changes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DANILO L. CONCEPCION, G.R. NO. 160727, June 26, 2007