Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) vs Court of Appeals (CA) Summary

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, OMICO CORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HING TIA, RESPONDENTS. ASTRA SECURITIES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. OMICO CORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HING TIA, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 187702 and G.R. No. 189014 | 2014-10-22

Quasi-judicial agencies (SEC) do not have the right to seek the review of an appellate court decision reversing any of their rulings; they are not real parties-in-interest
When proxies are solicited in relation to the election of corporate directors, treated as an election controversy within the jurisdiction of the regular trial courts, not the SEC
Power of the SEC to regulate proxy solicitation

FIRST DIVISION

D E C I S I O N

SERENO, C.J.:

G.R. No. 187702 is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision¹ dated 18 March 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 106006. G.R. No. 189014 is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the same Decision, as well as the CA Resolution² dated 9 July 2009. On 12 October 2009, the Court resolved to consolidate the two cases. ³

The CA Decision ruled that because controversies involving the validation of proxies are considered election contests under the Interim Rules of Procedure...