GR 95778; (July, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 95778 July 17, 1992
SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., petitioner, vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and BAGUIO SKYWORLD CONDOMINIUM, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Skyworld Condominium Owners Association, Inc. (SCOAI) was organized and granted a certificate of registration by the SEC on March 21, 1985, claiming to be the legitimate condominium corporation for the Skyworld Condominium in Baguio City. The original owner-developer was Inter-Realty Development Corporation, which mortgaged the property to China Banking Corporation (CBC). After Inter-Realty defaulted, CBC foreclosed and became the owner of the condominium project. CBC later organized the respondent Baguio Skyworld Condominium Corporation (BSCC), registered with the SEC on September 19, 1986. BSCC filed a complaint before the SEC’s Prosecution and Enforcement Department (PED) to revoke SCOAI’s certificate of registration on grounds of fraudulent procurement. SCOAI also filed a case to revoke BSCC’s certificate. The two revocation cases were consolidated. The PED, through Special Prosecutor Norberto Ruiz, conducted a hearing and issued a resolution dated December 12, 1989, ordering the revocation of SCOAI’s certificate. The SEC Commission en banc approved the resolution on the same day. SCOAI filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. SCOAI then filed a notice of appeal (SEC-AC No. 297), which the Commission treated as a motion for reconsideration and denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE
1. Whether the SEC Commission en banc validly approved the resolution/decision prepared by Special Prosecutor Norberto Ruiz revoking SCOAI’s certificate of registration.
2. Whether the Commission correctly treated SCOAI’s appeal (SEC-AC No. 297) as a motion for reconsideration and subsequently dismissed it.
RULING
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and AFFIRMED the SEC’s order revoking SCOAI’s certificate of registration.
1. The SEC Commission en banc validly approved the resolution. Presidential Decree No. 902-A vests the SEC with original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the suspension or revocation of a corporation’s certificate of registration. The power to decide such cases is vested in the Commission, not in any single official. The resolution prepared by Special Prosecutor Ruiz was a recommendation submitted to the Commission en banc, which reviewed and approved it. The approval by the Commission en banc constituted the official decision of the SEC. There was no violation of due process as the Commission, acting as a collegial body, exercised its adjudicative power.
2. The Commission correctly treated the appeal as a motion for reconsideration. Since the approved resolution was deemed the decision of the Commission en banc, the proper remedy was a motion for reconsideration filed with the Commission itself, not an appeal to it. The Commission’s denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper. The Supreme Court found no grave abuse of discretion, noting that the petition was part of a dilatory attempt and that factual findings of administrative agencies like the SEC are generally respected.