Young v. Sulit, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Martin Young, Robert Young, and Richard Young filed separate complaints against Gimenez Stock Brokerage & Co., Inc. with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for alleged illegal disposal of stocks and other malpractices. The SEC Hearing Officer Ben Cristobal rendered a decision ordering the respondent brokerage firm to pay the complainants substantial sums for various claims, including sales proceeds, differences in stock prices, illegal charges, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, and also imposed a fine. Procedural History: A copy of the decision was served on the respondent's counsel on May 20, 1981. The date of filing of the respondent's motion for reconsideration is disputed, with petitioners claiming it was filed out of time on June 25, 1981, while respondents assert it was filed on June 17, 1981. On the premise that the decision was final and executory, petitioners filed a motion for execution, and the SEC Hearing Officer issued a writ of execution. Subsequently, on August 20, 1981, the respondent, through new counsel, filed a Notice of Appeal, an Appeal to the Commission En Banc, and a Petition to Quash Writ of Execution and Preliminary Injunction. Acting on this petition, Associate Commissioner Julio A. Sulit, Jr. issued an order enjoining the Sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution and ordering the withdrawal of garnishment of the brokerage firm's funds. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to annul and set aside the August 20, 1981 order of Associate Commissioner Sulit, Jr., and to withdraw the garnishment.
Issue(s)
Whether Associate Commissioner Sulit acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Order of August 20, 1981, which stayed the execution of the decision in SEC Case No. 1763. Whether the petition for certiorari is the proper and timely remedy for the petitioners.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and remanded the case to the Securities and Exchange Commission for further proceedings. The bond posted by the private respondents was also remanded for proper disposition.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Associate Commissioner Sulit did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that for certiorari to lie, there must be a 'capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power,' which is the antithesis of judicial prerogative. By setting the petition to quash the writ of execution for a hearing, the respondent Commissioner demonstrated a lack of such whimsical exercise of power. The SEC was merely exercising its authority to determine the validity of the appeal and the timeliness of the prior motions. Thus, the stay of execution was a legitimate exercise of administrative caution while the procedural disputes were being resolved. Therefore, the petitioners failed to establish the gross and patent abuse of authority required for a writ of certiorari. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the petition was premature and procedurally defective. The order issued by Commissioner Sulit was an interlocutory order because it did not put an end to the controversy but merely suspended an execution pending further administrative determination. The Court reiterated the rule that interlocutory orders cannot be the subject of review on certiorari, as doing so would lead to trials never ending and would clog appellate dockets with piecemeal litigation. Petitioners should have waited for the SEC En Banc to rule on their prayer to disallow the appeal rather than rushing to the Supreme Court. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that the administrative process be allowed to run its course before judicial intervention is sought.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus is premature if filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission has resolved a pending motion to quash a writ of execution. An interlocutory order, which does not end the controversy, is not a proper subject for review on certiorari until the case is finally decided.