Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a dispute concerning the dissolution and liquidation of the partnership Tan Chin Heng & Company, formed in 1952 by brothers Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang, Ricardo Alonzo, Tang Chin Heng, and William Tang. The partnership had a 25-year term. Following the deaths of Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang, and Tang Kong Suy, conflicts arose between their heirs (petitioners) and the surviving partners (private respondents) due to the alleged failure to render an accounting and distribute profits. Procedural History: In an attempt to resolve their differences, the parties executed an agreement on March 11, 1975, referring the matter of property division to the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce. Subsequently, on February 5, 1991, the petitioners filed a petition for dissolution and liquidation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), docketed as SEC Case No. 3946. An SEC Hearing Officer issued a decision on February 9, 1993, affirming certain properties as partnership assets. The petitioners' motion for partial reconsideration was denied, and their subsequent appeal to the SEC en banc was not perfected due to failure to file the required memorandum and pay docket fees. A motion for execution was granted, and an opposition by the petitioners was denied. The SEC en banc, however, took cognizance of the case and remanded it for proper action. A motion for reconsideration was denied. A petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals (CA), which ruled that the SEC acted in excess of its jurisdiction, annulling the SEC's decision and resolution. The CA's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision, raising several issues regarding the CA's jurisdiction, its treatment of the certiorari petition, and its alleged failure to comprehend the SEC en banc's remand order. They argue that the SEC merely referred the case back to determine jurisdiction over the properties, especially in light of newly discovered information that some properties might have been adjudicated to Feliciano Tang's heirs in a 1964 intestate proceeding. The Supreme Court, however, found no merit in the petition, affirming the CA's ruling that the SEC en banc acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by entertaining the appeal after it had become final and executory due to the petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal. The Court also noted that the 1975 agreement acknowledged the properties as partnership assets and that the issue of their ownership was belatedly raised.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari filed by the private respondents, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in treating the private respondents' petition for certiorari as an appeal from the SEC decision. Whether the SEC En Banc erred in remanding the case to the department of origin instead of dismissing it, considering the alleged adjudication of properties in an intestate proceeding. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to dismiss the petition for certiorari due to defects in the certificate of non-forum shopping.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 18, 1998, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and the treatment of the petition: The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error in ruling that it was not legally justifiable for the SEC to take cognizance of the petitioners' "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." The petitioners failed to perfect their appeal to the SEC En Banc by not filing the Memorandum on Appeal and paying the docket fees within the reglementary period. Consequently, the Decision of the Hearing Officer dated February 9, 1993, had become final and executory. There was, therefore, nothing for the SEC En Banc to review. The SEC En Banc implicitly conceded that the appeal was not perfected but nonetheless took cognizance of it, treating it as a petition for review on certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule XII of its Rules, without a verified petition nor payment of docket fees. The Court ruled that under these circumstances, the Commission En Banc acted without jurisdiction or at least in excess of jurisdiction. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Failure to perfect the appeal renders the judgment final and executory, making execution a matter of right. Furthermore, an order of execution is not appealable under Rule 41, Section 1(f) of the Rules of Court. Thus, the SEC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it entertained the petitioners' appeal and treated it as a direct attack, thereby re-opening a case that had already become final and executory. On the SEC En Banc's action of remanding the case: The contention that the SEC En Banc merely remanded the case to the department of origin to determine jurisdiction over the properties, due to the alleged recent discovery of an intestate proceeding adjudication, is untenable. The list of partnership properties was never an issue in the case until after the order granting the writ of execution was issued. The March 11, 1975 Agreement, signed by Nieves Ke Tek (widow of Feliciano Tang), explicitly acknowledged the listed properties as commonly owned by the partners, despite titles being in the names of one or more of them. This agreement, executed ten years after the alleged 1964 CFI decision, served as an acknowledgment that the properties belonged to the partnership, not Feliciano Tang's estate. The petitioners never questioned this agreement or the receiver's report. The issue of properties belonging to Feliciano Tang's heirs was belatedly raised after the decision became final and executory, constituting an afterthought and an attempt to sleep on their rights, which the law does not protect. On the failure to dismiss the petition for certiorari for non-forum shopping: While the petition for certiorari may have been flawed due to the certificate of non-forum shopping being signed only by counsel, this procedural lapse was overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. The Court found prima facie merit in the petition before the CA, justifying the CA's evaluation.
Main Doctrine
Failure to perfect an appeal within the reglementary period renders the decision final and executory, precluding any further review or modification by higher bodies, and making an order of execution a matter of right. An order of execution is generally not appealable.