G.R. No. 148152 - INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING CORPORATION, VS. JOSE T. JALANDOON,[G.R. NO. 149450]SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, VS. JOSE T. JALANDOON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , foregoing premises considered, and under the circumstances of the present case, the Republic of the Philippines, as represented by PCGG, is hereby ordered impleaded as party-respondent, copy of this decision shall be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General as counsel for the government. The parties are directed to furnish the Solicitor General with copies of all the pertinent pleadings they have filed in the instant case within fifteen (15) days from their receipt hereof. The Solicitor General is hereby directed to file its Comments and Answer to the petitioner's claims within fifteen (15) days from its receipt of said pleadings. And the petitioner is given a like period of time to file his response thereto. Any and all pleadings required to be submitted after this Order is issued shall be filed before the court of proper jurisdiction as may be designated by the Supreme Court. SO ORDERED . [8] Respondent appealed the SEC Order to the Court of Appeals by filing a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus With Very Urgent Application for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order. In its Decision promulgated on May 9, 2001, the Court of Appeals stated the main issue as: Did the Securities and Exchange Commission gravely abuse its discretion in refusing to decide the instant case and instead transferring the same to the regular courts? The Court of Appeals held that SEC should decide the instant case, thus: It is undisputed that per order dated July 28, 2000, (p. 382, rollo ), petitioner's (Jalandoon) case before the Commission was �now submitted for decision". Both parties therein, per records, duly submitted the required memorandum within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the order. Clearly, therefore, at the time petitioner's case was being heard and up to the time the same was submitted for decision, it was still governed by the REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE IN THE SECURITIES AND EXHANGE COMMISSION adopted on August 1, 1989 as amended, on April 26, 1993. It must also be pointed out that the GUIDELINES which the Commission issued pursuant to par. 5.2, Sec. 5, of R.A. 8799, specifically Sec. 2 thereof provides thus: " The COMMISSION SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER PENDING INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTES SUBMITTED FOR FINAL RESOLUTION [PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE ACT] which shall be resolved within one (1) year from July 19, 2000." Since petitioner's case was submitted for final resolution on July 28, 2000 and since R.A. 8799 took effect only on August 9, 2000, petitioner's case should have remained within the jurisdiction of public respondent Commission and decided by it pursuant to the August 1, 1989 Rules of the Commission, as amended . . . . [9] The dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals reads: Wherefore , foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE , and the challenged order of public respondent Commission hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE , and it is