SY CHIN, SY HEN, TANG TUBI, TANG ANDRES, TANG FELINO, NIEVES KE TEK TANG, ANNIE KE TEK TANG, PENNIE CHUA TANG, LENIE TANG, ZENNIE KE TEK TANG, FELICIA KE TEK TANG, ONG SO HUA, JUDY ALONZO, EDUARDO ALONZO AND ALFREDO ALONZO, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, TANG CHING HENG & CO., TANG CHIN HENG AND WILLIAM

Ruling

WHEREFORE, finding merit in the petition, the Court issues the writ of certiorari and annuls the Decision dated December 6, 1995 and the Resolution dated July 25, 1997 of the respondent Commission. [6] The subsequent motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied. Hence, this petition. In the instant petition, the following issues were raised: THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DID NOT ACQUIRE JURISDICTION ON PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI; THAT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT TREATED PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AS AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC); III. THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS FAILED TO COMPREHEND THAT THE SEC ACTING EN BANC DID NOT MODIFY, ALTER, CHANGE OR OTHERWISE AMEND ITS DECISION BUT MERELY REFER IT BACK TO THE ARBITER TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPERTIES TO BE DISTRIBUTED BELONG TO THE PARTNERSHIP OR NOT; THAT THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO DISMISS AND/OR DENY DUE COURSE TO PRIVATE RESPONDENTS' PETITION; [7] There is no merit in the petition. The respondent court did not commit reversible error when it ruled that it was not legally justifiable for the SEC to take cognizance of petitioner's "appeal" to the Order granting the Motion for Execution as a "direct attack against the orders of the hearing officer, the purpose of which is to annul the same." [8] As can be gleaned from the records, the Decision of the Hearing Officer rendered on February 9, 1993 to which a timely motion for partial reconsideration was filed had already become final and executory for petitioner's failure to perfect their appeal to the SEC en banc . We quote the respondent court's finding on this matter: The most critical incidents that transpired in the respondent Commission were these: The SEC Hearing Officer rendered on February 9, 1993 a Decision to which the private respondents timely filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. On August 24, 1993, within the reglementary period, private respondents filed their Notice of Appeal (sic) said Decision and Order denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration to the SEC en banc. However, they failed to pay the docket fee and file a Memorandum on Appeal. Section 3, Rule XVI of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the SEC states: Section 3. How Appeal is Taken: When Perfected - Appeal may be taken by filing with the Hearing Officer who promulgated the decision, order or ruling within thirty (30) days from notice thereof, and serving upon the adverse party, notice of appeal and a memorandum on appeal and paying the corresponding docket fee therefor. The appeal shall be considered perfected upon the filing of the memorandum on the appeal and payment of the docket fee within the period hereinabove fixed. (Amended). In the light of said rule, it is as clear as a dew that the appeal to the SEC en banc was not perfected and resultantly, the Decision of February 9, 1993 has become final and executory. There