Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol & Tibayan v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Danilo M. Tungol and Abelardo M. Tibayan, partners in the Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan, filed a complaint against their partner, respondent Erlando A. Abrenica, for accounting, return and transfer of partnership funds with damages and application for preliminary attachment. They claimed that respondent Abrenica entered into a real estate transaction that was a law partnership transaction and that he had unaccounted and unremitted partnership profits amounting to P4,524,000.00. Procedural History: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Hearing Officer issued an Order granting the preliminary attachment of respondent Abrenica's assets, including a parcel of land, three vehicles, and bank deposits. Respondent Abrenica filed an Omnibus Motion for inhibition and reconsideration. The Hearing Officer inhibited himself, and a new panel denied the motion for reconsideration. Respondent Abrenica then filed a petition for certiorari with the SEC en banc, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Hearing Officer and Panel in granting the attachment and denying the reconsideration. The SEC en banc issued an Order discharging the attachment on respondent Abrenica's personal properties, citing that the house and lot alone was sufficient to cover the claim. Subsequently, the SEC issued another Order directing the release of the three vehicles. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, arguing that the SEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion in discharging the attachment and in issuing the order for release. The Court of Appeals affirmed the SEC en banc's order discharging the attachment but set aside the order for the release of the vehicles, finding it to be premature execution. The Petition: Petitioners seek a review of the Court of Appeals' decision, contending that the SEC en banc erred in holding that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the issue of excessive attachment, which they claim was raised for the first time on certiorari and not before the trial court. They argue that the SEC en banc, exercising appellate jurisdiction, should not have considered this issue.
Issue(s)
Whether the SEC en banc, in a special civil action for certiorari, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it discharged the attachment on respondent Abrenica's personal properties, specifically by addressing the issue of excessive attachment in a certiorari proceeding. Whether the SEC en banc, in a special civil action for certiorari, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered the release of respondent Abrenica's vehicles. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the SEC en banc's order discharging the attachment, considering the SEC en banc's jurisdictional error.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 15, 2000, and the two Orders of the SEC en banc dated September 17, 1999, and September 28, 1999, are declared NULL and VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the SEC en banc's jurisdiction over the issue of excessive attachment: The Supreme Court held that the SEC en banc, in a special civil action for certiorari, was not acting on an ordinary appeal but on its original jurisdiction to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The issue of whether the attachment was excessive is a factual matter involving the appraisal and evaluation of evidence, which constitutes an error of judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Therefore, the SEC en banc committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it addressed this non-jurisdictional issue in a special civil action for certiorari. The Court emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari is designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction, not errors of judgment. Erroneous factual findings are beyond the ambit of certiorari. The proper recourse for respondent Abrenica would have been to raise the issue of excessive attachment before the Hearing Officer/Panel where evidence could be presented and objections heard. On the SEC en banc's order for the release of vehicles: The Supreme Court found it unnecessary to delve into the validity of the SEC en banc's Order dated September 28, 1999, given its conclusion regarding the September 17, 1999 order. However, the Court of Appeals had already set aside the September 28, 1999 order, finding it to be a premature execution since the period of appeal had not yet expired. On the Court of Appeals' affirmation of the SEC en banc's order discharging the attachment: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. It found that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the SEC en banc's order discharging the attachment because the SEC en banc acted without jurisdiction when it resolved the issue of excessive attachment in a certiorari proceeding. The Court reiterated that the SEC en banc should not have entertained the issue of excessive attachment, as it was a matter of judgment and not jurisdiction, and the proper venue for such a claim was the SEC Hearing Officer/Panel.
Main Doctrine
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) en banc, when acting on a petition for certiorari, exercises original jurisdiction to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion, not errors of judgment. An issue of excessive attachment, being a factual matter involving appraisal of evidence, is an error of judgment and not a jurisdictional error, thus, it cannot be the subject of a special civil action for certiorari before the SEC en banc.