ROY III v. HERBOSA

Jose M. Roy III Vs Chairperson Teresita Herbosa, The Securities and Exchange Commission and Philippine Long Distance Company

G.R. No. 207246

April 18, 2017

Facts:

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration dated January 19, 2017 (the Motion) filed by petitioner Jose M. Roy III (movant) seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision dated November 22, 2016 (the Decision) which denied the movant's petition, and declared that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing Memorandum Circular No. 8, Series of 2013 (SEC-MC No. 8) as the same was in compliance with, and in fealty to, the decision of the Court in Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Teves (Gamboa Decision) and the resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration therein (Gamboa Resolution).

The Motion presents no compelling and new arguments to justify the reconsideration of the Decision.

The Decision has already exhaustively discussed and directly passed upon these grounds. Movant's petition was dismissed based on both procedural and substantive grounds.

Issue:

Whether or not SEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued SEC-MC No. 8.

Held:

SEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued SEC-MC No. 8. The Court finds SEC-MC No. 8 to have been issued in fealty to the Gamboa Decision and Resolution.

Pursuant to the Court's constitutional duty to exercise judicial review, the Court has conclusively found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of SEC in issuing SEC-MC No. 8.

The Decision has painstakingly explained why it considered as obiter dictum that pronouncement in the Gamboa Resolution that the constitutional requirement on Filipino ownership should "apply uniformly and across the board to all classes of shares, regardless of nomenclature and category, comprising the capital of a corporation." The Court stated that:

The fallo or decretal/dispositive portions of both the Gamboa Decision and Resolution are definite, clear and unequivocal. While there is a passage in the body of the Gamboa Resolution that might have appeared contrary to the fallo of the Gamboa Decision, the definiteness and clarity of the fallo of the Gamboa Decision must control over the obiter dictum in the Gamboa Resolution regarding the application of the 60-40 Filipino-foreign ownership requirement to "each class of shares, regardless of differences in voting rights, privileges and restrictions."

To the Court's mind and, as exhaustively demonstrated in the Decision, the dispositive portion of the Gamboa Decision was in no way modified by the Gamboa Resolution.

The heart of the controversy is the interpretation of Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution, which provides: "No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens."

The Gamboa Decision already held, in no uncertain terms, that what the Constitution requires is full and legal beneficial ownership of 60 percent of the outstanding capital stock, coupled with 60 percent of the voting rights must rest in the hands of Filipino nationals. And, precisely that is what SEC-MC No. 8 provides; For purposes of determining compliance with the constitutional or statutory ownership, the required percentage of Filipino ownership shall be applied to both the total number of outstanding shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors; and (b) the total number of outstanding shares of stock, whether or not entitled to vote.

In conclusion, the basic issues raised in the Motion having been duly considered and passed upon by the Court in the Decision and no substantial argument having been adduced to warrant the reconsideration sought, the Court resolves to deny the Motion with finality.