G.R. No. 246027, January 28, 2025
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. 1ACCOUNTANTS PARTY-LIST, INC., REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, CHRISTIAN JAY D. LIM, CHRISTIAN JAY D. LIM IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS CPA, FROILAN G. AMPIL, ALLAN M. BASARTE, VIRGILIO F. AGUNOD, AND JONAS P. MASCARIÑAS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a second motion for reconsideration. The dissenting opinion argues against granting this motion. The main decision had declared void SEC issuances (Rule 68, paragraph 3 of the SRC IRR and SEC MC No. 13-2009) requiring the accreditation of Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) acting as external auditors for corporations issuing registered securities. The decision held that this accreditation requirement curtailed the right of CPAs to practice accountancy, a power vested solely in the Professional Regulatory Board of Accountancy (PRBOA) under Republic Act No. 9298 (The Philippine Accountancy Act of 2004). The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the SEC and PRBOA allowing such accreditation was also declared void. The SEC’s arguments in its second motion for reconsideration were largely reiterations of its previous positions, contending that its accreditation power was incidental to its regulatory mandate, served public interest, and applied only to a small percentage of corporations.

ISSUE

Whether the SEC’s second motion for reconsideration should be granted, considering it is a prohibited pleading under the rules, and whether the SEC’s accreditation requirement for CPAs acting as external auditors for certain corporations is valid.

RULING

The dissenting opinion concludes that the second motion for reconsideration should be denied. First, it is a prohibited pleading under Section 3, Rule 15 of A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC (The Internal Rules of the Supreme Court). While exceptions can be made in the higher interest of justice, the SEC failed to meet the threshold criteria. Its arguments were mere reiterations of points already discussed and resolved in the main decision. The grounds did not show that the assailed decision was patently unjust and capable of causing unwarranted and irremediable injury. Second, the motion lacks merit. The SEC’s accreditation requirement is invalid because: (1) It contravenes Republic Act No. 9298, which exclusively empowers the PRBOA to supervise, register, and license the practice of accountancy in the Philippines, including the work of external auditors; (2) It constitutes an unauthorized duplication and usurpation of the PRBOA’s statutory powers; (3) The SEC’s claimed authority, including a reference to Section 177 of the Revised Corporation Code, does not provide a valid grant of power to regulate the practice of accountancy or impose such an accreditation requirement; and (4) The MOA between the SEC and PRBOA is void, as delegated power (the PRBOA’s power to regulate the profession) cannot be further delegated.