Mitsui & Co., Ltd. v. Abello
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Atlas Shipping Lines, Inc. (ATLAS) filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking the revocation of Mitsui & Co., Ltd.'s (MITSUI) license to do business in the Philippines. ATLAS alleged that MITSUI violated Philippine laws and the conditions set by the Office of the President concerning the sale of an ocean-going vessel by ATLAS to MITSUI. 2. Procedural History: MITSUI moved to dismiss the SEC petition, arguing the SEC lacked jurisdiction and the allegations did not constitute a cause of action. This motion was denied by SEC Hearing Officer Emmanuel R. Sison, as was MITSUI's subsequent motion for reconsideration. MITSUI then filed a petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 50101), seeking to annul the Hearing Officer's order, but this petition was dismissed for lack of merit. Subsequently, MITSUI's motion to elevate the SEC case to the SEC en banc was denied by the Hearing Officer. MITSUI appealed this denial to the SEC en banc, which dismissed the appeal, treating it as a petition for review, and affirmed the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction and decision. The SEC en banc later denied MITSUI's motion for reconsideration of this affirmation. 3. The Petition: MITSUI filed the current petition with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify and set aside the SEC en banc's orders of December 29, 1981, and June 18, 1982, and to direct the dismissal of SEC Case No. 001614. The petition invokes the same grounds as the prior G.R. No. 50101, primarily alleging that the SEC lacks jurisdiction to hear ATLAS's petition and that the grounds presented by ATLAS do not support the revocation of MITSUI's business license. The petition is framed as a challenge to the SEC en banc's authority and decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the SEC en banc erred in treating MITSUI's appeal as a petition for review. Whether the SEC Hearing Officer possessed the necessary jurisdiction to act on MITSUI's motion to elevate the case to the SEC en banc. Whether the SEC Hearing Officer gravely abused his discretion in denying MITSUI's motion to elevate the case to the SEC en banc. Whether the SEC en banc committed a grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Hearing Officer's order and denying MITSUI's motion for reconsideration. Whether the SEC has jurisdiction to entertain ATLAS's petition for revocation of MITSUI's license to do business in the Philippines. Whether the allegations in ATLAS's petition constitute grounds for the suspension or revocation of MITSUI's license to do business in the Philippines.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit and for the reasons stated above. The petitioner is adjudged to pay treble costs. This resolution is final.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nature of the SEC en banc's order and the propriety of appeal: The Supreme Court clarified that the order sought to be reviewed by the SEC en banc was interlocutory, not a final order. Consequently, the remedy of appeal would not lie, in line with Section 1, Rule XVI of the New Rules of Procedure of the SEC. The Commission correctly treated the appeal as a petition for review, akin to certiorari, to address the issues raised. On the jurisdiction of the SEC Hearing Officer: The Supreme Court held that the SEC Hearing Officer possessed the necessary jurisdiction to act on MITSUI's motion to elevate the case to the Commission en banc. The Court found no indication that the Hearing Officer exceeded this jurisdiction. On grave abuse of discretion by the SEC Hearing Officer: The Court found that the SEC Hearing Officer did not gravely abuse his discretion in denying MITSUI's motion to elevate the case to the Commission en banc. The denial was based on the Hearing Officer's assessment of the case and the procedural rules. On grave abuse of discretion by the SEC en banc: Similarly, the Supreme Court found that the SEC en banc did not commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Hearing Officer's order and denying MITSUI's motion for reconsideration. The SEC en banc's reasoning that the Hearing Officer acted within his jurisdiction and did not abuse it was deemed sound. On the jurisdiction of the SEC and the grounds for revocation: The Supreme Court noted that the instant petition was substantially the same as a previous petition (G.R. No. 50101) which had already been dismissed for lack of merit. The grounds alleged by ATLAS in its petition for revocation were previously considered by the Court in the prior dismissal, implying that the SEC's jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the grounds were implicitly affirmed or at least not found to be lacking merit to warrant dismissal at that stage. On the dilatory nature of the petition: The Court concluded that the petition, like the previous one, was utterly lacking in merit and was filed for dilatory purposes. The Court also expressed its displeasure with the manner in which the petition treated the Supreme Court, deeming it cavalier.
Main Doctrine
A petition for review of an interlocutory order is not the proper remedy; such an order is not appealable. The SEC Hearing Officer possesses jurisdiction to act on a motion to elevate a case to the Commission en banc, and denying such a motion does not constitute grave abuse of discretion warranting annulment.