Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gokongwei, Jr. vs. SEC (97 SCRA 78) G.R. No. L-52129 April 21, 1980

    Uploaded by

    eunice demaclid
    116 views1 page
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1980. It involves a petition by John Gokongwei Jr. to nullify a Securities and Exchange Commission resolution upholding a finding that he was ineligible to be a director of San Miguel Corporation due to engaging in competitive business activities. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the amended by-laws of San Miguel Corporation were valid and could be enforced based on prior court opinions. It also found that Gokongwei did not provide evidence to rebut the findings of his disqualification.

    Original Description:

    merchantile law

    Original Title

    24. Gokongwei, Jr. vs. SEC (97 SCRA 78) G.R. No. L-52129 April 21, 1980

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1980. It involves a petition by John Gokongwei Jr. to nullify a Securities and Exchange Commission resolution upholding a finding that he was ineligible to be a director of San Miguel Corporation due to engaging in competitive business activities. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the amended by-laws of San Miguel Corporation were valid and could be enforced based on prior court opinions. It also found that Gokongwei did not provide evidence to rebut the findings of his disqualification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    116 views1 page

    Gokongwei, Jr. vs. SEC (97 SCRA 78) G.R. No. L-52129 April 21, 1980

    Uploaded by

    eunice demaclid
    This document is a summary of a Supreme Court of the Philippines case from 1980. It involves a petition by John Gokongwei Jr. to nullify a Securities and Exchange Commission resolution upholding a finding that he was ineligible to be a director of San Miguel Corporation due to engaging in competitive business activities. The Court dismissed the petition, finding that the amended by-laws of San Miguel Corporation were valid and could be enforced based on prior court opinions. It also found that Gokongwei did not provide evidence to rebut the findings of his disqualification.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. L-52129 April 21, 1980

    JOHN GOKONGWEI, JR., petitioner,


    vs.
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ANDRES M. SORIANO, JOSE M.
    SORIANO, ENRIQUE ZOBEL, ANTONIO ROXAS, EMETERIO BUNAO, WALTHRODE B. CONDE, MIGUEL ORTIGAS,
    EMIGDIO TANJUATCO and EDUARDO VISAYA, respondents.

    ANTONIO, J.:

    In this petition for review, petitioner seeks to nullify and set aside the resolution en banc dated May 7, 1979 of respondent
    Securities and Exchange Commission in SEC Case No. 1375, sustaining the findings of the San Miguel Corporation's Board
    of Directors that petitioner is engaged in a business competitive with or antagonistic to that of the San Miguel Corporation
    and, therefore, ineligible for election as director, pursuant to Section 3, Article III of the amended by-laws. Petitioner alleges
    that the matter of petitioner's disqualification should not have been heard in view of the pendency of petitioner's motion for
    reconsideration with this Court; that when respondent Commission sustained the disqualification of petitioner, it failed to
    consider that private respondents are precluded from disqualifying petitioner because of the rule of pari delicto; and that the
    resolution of disqualification of the respondent Board of Directors was an "over exertion of corporate power" because by this
    act the afore-mentioned Board of Directors intended to perpetuate themselves in power. Considering the afore-mentioned
    allegations and the comments thereto, We find no merit in the petition.

    Aside from the presumptive validity of the amended by-laws at the time the questioned resolution was rendered by
    respondent Securities and Exchange Commission, the Chief Justice and six (6) Justices of this Court had already
    promulgated their opinions that the validity of the amended by-laws insofar and only insofar as the parties herein are
    concerned, can no longer be relitigated on the basis of the "law of the. case" doctrine and, therefore, the enforcement of the
    amended by-laws could not have been ipso factor stayed by the motion for reconsideration. Petitioner's allegation that
    respondent Commission (Securities and Exchange Commission) could not have validly sustained the resolution of the San
    Miguel Corporation Board because some members of the Board were also disqualified as they were situated like petitioner
    appears inapposite. The alleged disqualification of some members of the Board was never in issue during the hearing of the
    disqualification case, and petitioner has not submitted any evidence in support of his contention. Petitioner's assertion that the
    order of respondent Commission disqualifying him is based on evidence which are "at the most, contingent and flimsy"
    appears unsupported by the records. The order of respondent Commission was based principally on the affidavits of Nazario
    Avendaño, Ruperto Sarandi, Jr., Fernando Constantino, Jose Picornell and Mabini Antonio and documentary evidence
    showing that petitioner is engaged in agricultural and poultry business competitive with that of San Miguel Corporation.
    Petitioner did not adduce any evidence to rebut the evidence of his disqualification. It is well-settled that findings of fact of
    administrative bodies will not be interferred with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of said
    agencies, or unless the afore-mentioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence (Central Bank V. Cloribel, 44
    SCRA 307 [1972]).

    WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the petition for lack of merit.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like