G.R. No. 146079 . March 25, 2002.
Kanemitsu Yamaoka, petitioner, vs. Pescarich Manufacturing Corporation (formerly Yamaoka Nippon Corporation), Tetsuo Adachi, Eiji Kawai and Maria Lynn Gesmundo, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Kanemitsu Yamaoka filed a case with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to recover control and management of Pescarich Manufacturing Corporation. The SEC Hearing Officer denied his application for a writ of preliminary injunction and the appointment of a management committee. Yamaoka then filed a petition for certiorari with the SEC En Banc, which set aside the Hearing Officer’s order, issued a preliminary injunction restraining respondents from exercising rights over disputed shares and managing the corporation, and ordered the creation of a Management Committee.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising multiple issues, including the propriety of the certiorari petition and the merits of the SEC’s factual findings. The Court of Appeals reversed the SEC, ruling solely that certiorari was an improper remedy and annulling the SEC’s decision without addressing the other substantive issues. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that certiorari was permissible under SEC rules.

ISSUE

Whether the unresolved factual issues raised by respondents before the Court of Appeals should be addressed, and if so, by which court.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for partial reconsideration and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is that the Court of Appeals’ decision was limited to the procedural issue of the propriety of certiorari. It explicitly declined to rule on the substantive factual issues presented by respondents, deeming such a discussion “an exercise in futility” after finding the SEC decision void. Consequently, when the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the procedural point, it effectively reinstated the jurisdictional validity of the SEC’s proceedings but left the unresolved factual controversies untouched.
These unresolved issues—including the timeliness of Yamaoka’s appeal to the SEC En Banc, the validity of the promissory notes and deed of assignment covering the disputed shares, and the propriety of the injunction and management committee—are inherently factual in nature. As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, the proper course is to remand the case to the Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court vested with jurisdiction to review, weigh, and resolve questions of fact. This ensures the parties receive a complete adjudication on all matters properly raised in the appeal.