FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236620. February 1, 2023.]

JOSE T. TENGCO III and ANTHONY KIERULF , petitioners, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

[G.R. No. 236802. February 1, 2023.]

BARBARA MAY L. GARCIA , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

[G.R. No. 237156. February 1, 2023.]

HERLEY JESUITAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

respondent.

DECISION

ZALAMEDA, J : p

The cases before this Court consist of three 1 (3) Petitions for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 filed by Jose T. Tengco III (Tengco) and Anthony Kierulf (Kierulf) in G.R.
No. 236620, by Barbara May L. Garcia (Garcia) in G.R. No. 236802, and by Herley
Jesuitas (Jesuitas) (collectively, petitioners) in G.R. No. 237156. All petitions assail the
same Decision 2 dated 10 July 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated 05 January 2018 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in G.R. SP No. 149445. HTcADC

The CA annulled and set aside the Orders dated 16 May 20164 and 23 November
2016 5 of Branch 139 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case
No. 08-1083. On 16 May 2016, the RTC granted the motions to dismiss the criminal case
for violation of Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 8799, 6 or the Securities Regulation
Code, against petitioners and Oudine Santos (Santos), Nicoline Mendoza (Mendoza), and
Maria Pamela Morris (Morris). On 23 November 2016, the RTC denied the prosecution's
motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. 7
Antecedents
The CA summarized the facts as follows:
Caravaggio Holdings, Inc. was incorporated on February 21, 2001. A month
later, or on March 12, 2001, it changed its name to Philippine International
Planning Center Corporation (PIPCC, for brevity). Per its Articles of Incorporation,
PIPCC was authorized to act as a research arm of foreign clients. It was not
registered to engage in the solicitation and sale of securities. Corollarily, PIPCC's
officers, agents and officers [sic] were not licensed to solicit, offer, or sell
securities to the public.
On July 17, 2007, PIPCC Chairman and President Michael H.K. Liew
disappeared along with approximately US$250 Million worth of investments in the
corporation.
Thereafter, the SEC Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (SEC-
EIPD) received thirty-one (31) verified complaints [from people] claiming that
they were investors of PIPCC. The complaints uniformly alleged that PIPCC,
through its agents and/or brokers, which included [petitioners, Santos, Mendoza,
and Morris], enticed the investors-complainants to place money in US Dollars or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Euros in PIPCC with a promise of higher income potential, that is, ranging from
12% to 18% interest, at a relatively lower risk compared with traditional
investments in banks and other financial institutions. The PIPCC also claimed that
as the Philippine branch/office of the Performance Investments Products
Corporation British Virgin Islands, it was engaged in offshore foreign currency
exchange trading. The officers and agents of PIPCC further made it appear that
they had secured the proper licenses from the SEC to engage in the solicitation,
offer, and sale of securities.
The investors-complainants further alleged that they made several
investments in US Dollars or Euros from 2001 to 2007 with PIPCC through
[petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] as agents/brokers. Among the
investments and the respective brokers/agents thereof are as follows:

DATE BROKER/ INVESTOR AMOUNT INVESTED

AGENT

December 2005 [Morris] Virginia S. Barbers US$40,000

US$60,000
US$200,000

July 21, 2006 [Garcia] Charlemagne and US$60,000

Charlyn C. Lim

July 10, 2006 [Garcia] Carmen T. US$40,000

Sumawang

January 9, 2001 [Morris] Alejandro Montinola P510,000

Recto

March 19, 2003 [Morris] Alejandro Montinola US$30,000

Recto

September 26, [Morris] Adrianne Mae Joson US$40,000

2006

March 2005 [Mendoza] Marcia E. Rodriguez US$40,000

April 2005 [Mendoza] Marcia E. Rodriguez US$20,000

September 2005 [Tengco] Carolina Y. Villacorta- €40,000

Katigbak

Not provided [Jesuitas] Therese Christy Not provided

Vesagas-Laxa

August 11, 2003 Nicole Ortega and Mercedes M. Gallent US$20,000

[Kierulf]

November 3, Nicole Ortega and Mercedes M. Gallent US$30,000

2003 [Kierulf]

June 2007 [Santos] Luisa Mercedes P. US$500,000

Lorenzo

October 9, 2006 [Santos] Ricky Albino P. Sy US$40,000

The SEC-EIPD conducted an investigation and called for a preliminary

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 conference with the officers/directors of PIPCC. It found that the PIPCC was not
licensed to solicit, offer, or sell securities to the public. Despite this, PIPCC,
through its directors, officers, brokers, and agents, which included [petitioners,
Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] still sold securities to complainants-investors.
On the basis of its investigation, the SEC-EIPD found probable cause against
[petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] for violation of Section 28 of the
Securities Regulation Code which proscribes the engagement of any person in the
business of buying or selling securities in the Philippines as a broker or dealer,
unless registered as such with the Commission. Consequently, the SEC, through
the SEC-EIPD, filed a complaint-affidavit dated November 27, 2007 with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) against [petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] as
agents/brokers of PIPCC, along with its Chairman/President Michael H.K. Liew,
General Manager/Board of Directors Member Cristina Gonzales Tuason, Board of
Directors Member Ma. Christina Jurado, Agent Eugene Go, and other agents,
namely: Michael Melchor Nubla, Luis "Jimbo" Aragon, and Mayenne Carmona.
The DOJ immediately formed a panel of prosecutors which conducted a
preliminary investigation of the complaint wherein it found probable cause that
[petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] committed the crime charged against
them.
In an Information dated June 19, 2008 before the [RTC], [petitioners,
Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] and their seven (7) other co-accused were charged
with violation of Section 28 of the Securities Regulation Code committed as
follows:
That on or about March 2001 to July 2007, in the City of Makati
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, acting as agents for and in behalf of the Philippine
International Planning Center ("PIPC Corp.") and/or Performance
Investment Product Corporation-British Virgin Islands ("PIPC-BVI") did,
then and there, sell and/or offer for sale security investments to the
general public, without being registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") as such agents in violation of Section
28 of the Securities Regulation Code, to the damage and prejudice of
the Government.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
During the arraignments conducted from September 2008 to February
2009, [petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris], with the assistance of their
respective counsels, all pleaded not guilty. x x x Trial on the merits ensued
thereafter.
During the hearing on April 16, 2015, the court a quo, through public
respondent Judge Benjamin T. Pozon, directed the SEC to issue a certification and
confirm whether or not subpoenas were served/issued upon any of accused
before the complaint was filed before the DOJ; whether or not the SEC invited or
summoned any of the accused to any hearing before this case was filed before
the DOJ; whether or not the SEC served any notices [sic] to the accused that they
were under investigation before the filing of the complaint with the DOJ; whether
or not the SEC arrived at the finding of probable cause before the complaint was
filed with the DOJ; and whether or not the finding of probable cause, if it exists,
was served upon any of the accused before the complaint was filed before the
DOJ.
In a Manifestation/Compliance dated May 6, 2015, the SEC certified that it
conducted an investigation wherein it issued notices of conferences to the officers
and/or directors of PIPCC. It was only after it found probable cause in the course
of its investigation that it filed the instant complaint with the DOJ.
On August 7, 2015, or seven (7) years after her arraignment on October 8,
2008, x x x Garcia filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the light of
the SEC's admission that it failed to conduct its own preliminary investigation.
Citing 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code and the cases of Baviera vs.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Paglinawan and Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Interport Resources
Corporation, et al., x x x Garcia alleged that a criminal complaint for violation of
the Securities Regulation Code must be filed with the SEC, which must then
determine the presence of probable cause. It is only after a finding of probable
cause that the case may be referred to the DOJ. Here, the SEC's failure to conduct
a preliminary investigation before filing the instant case with the DOJ is a fatal
procedural lapse that violated x x x Garcia's right to due process of laws and thus
warranted the dismissal of the criminal charge against her.
Thereafter, x x x Jesuitas, Kierulf, Tengco, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris
likewise filed their respective motions to dismiss, alleging similar grounds as
those alleged in x x x Garcia's motion to dismiss, that is, the failure of the SEC to
notify [them] of the investigation it conducted which violated their rights to due
process warranting the dismissal of the case against them for lack of jurisdiction.
8

Ruling of the RTC

In an Order 9 dated 16 May 2016, the RTC granted petitioners' motions to dismiss
the case. It declared that the case was dismissible on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and for denial of the petitioners' right to due process.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Motions to Dismiss are
hereby GRANTED.
The case against [Garcia, Jesuitas, Santos, Kierulf, Tengco, Mendoza and
Morris is] hereby DISMISSED.
Furnish copies of this Order to the parties, their respective counsels and to
Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Benjamin S. Vermug, Jr.
SO ORDERED. 10

The Special Prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration, 11 which the RTC
denied for lack of merit in an Order 12 dated 23 November 2016.
Ruling of the CA
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Petition for Certiorari 13 under Rule
65 to question the RTC's dismissal. The CA declared that the pivotal issue to be resolved
is whether there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the RTC judge when it dismissed the case on violation of their
rights to due process. The alleged violation happened when the SEC failed to conduct its
own preliminary investigation before it endorsed the case to the DOJ for preliminary
investigation and prosecution.
The CA granted the OSG's petition, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition for certiorari is
hereby GRANTED. The Orders dated May 16, 2016 and November 23, 2016 are
ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Criminal Case No. 08-1083 for Violation of
Section 28 of RA No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code,
filed against [petitioners, Santos, Mendoza, and Morris] is REINSTATED. The case
is REMANDED to the [RTC] for further proceedings.
SO ORDERED. 14

For the CA, petitioners were not deprived of due process because they fully
participated in the preliminary investigation where they were afforded the opportunity
to refute the charges against them before the DOJ. Moreover, even if there was an
irregularity during the preliminary investigation, it does not affect the jurisdiction of the
court over the case. Neither does it constitute a ground for quashing the Information.
Irregularity in the preliminary investigation may be remedied by suspension of the trial
and ordering the SEC to conduct its investigation anew.
Petitioners' separate motions for reconsideration were denied by the CA in its 05
January 2018 Resolution. 15 They then filed their respective petitions for certiorari under
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 Rule 45 before this Court. We later granted the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG)
Omnibus Motion, 16 which prayed, among others, for the consolidation of the separate
petitions for review by petitioners and Mendoza. We considered the OSG's Comment to
G.R. No. 236802 and dispensed with the filing of a Comment in G.R. Nos. 236620 and
237156.
Petitioners' Arguments
Tengco and Kierulf, in G.R. No. 236620, raise the following grounds to warrant the
Petition:
The Court of Appeals gravely erred, and decided contrary to law and the rulings of
this Honorable Court, when it overturned the Orders of Judge Pozon, which
dismissed Criminal Case No. 08-1083 as to Petitioners.
I. Judge Pozon correctly dismissed Criminal Case No. 08-1093 as to Petitioners
for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to this Honorable Court's rulings in Baviera
vs. Paglinawan, SEC vs. Interport and Pua vs. Citibank, N.A.
II. The SEC did not substantially comply with the required procedure under
Section 53.1 of the Securities Regulation Code. Rather, the SEC's violation of
Petitioner's rights to due process invalidated the proceedings as to them.
III. Judge Pozon correctly took cognizance of the defense of lack of jurisdiction,
which may be raised at any stage of the case.
IV. Considering that the SEC's fatal procedural lapse violated Petitioners' rights
to due process and invalidated the proceedings as to them, Judge Pozon did
not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Criminal Case No. 08-
1083 as to them. 17
On the other hand, Garcia, in G.R. No. 236802, allege these issues:
A. The Court of Appeals erred when it allowed and granted Respondent's
Petition for Certiorari. The Trial Court Orders were final judgments that could have
been assailed only by appeal. Respondent pursued the wrong remedy. Certiorari
cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The Trial Court Orders have long attained
finality and can no longer be reversed.
B. The Trial Court Orders were issued in accordance with the SRC, the SEC's
own Rules of Procedure and this Honorable Court's ruling in Baviera v. Paglinawan
a n d SEC v. Interport Resources Corp. The Assailed Judgment grossly failed to
appreciate key facts and decided the Petition for Certiorari in a way contrary to
law and jurisprudence, which warrants the exercise of this Honorable Court's
power of supervision.
C. Since Ms. Garcia was deprived of due process, the RTC-Makati never validly
acquired jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even on
appeal. Ms. Garcia challenged RTC-Makati's lack of jurisdiction as soon as it
became apparent and did not waive her right to question the same.
D. Even assuming that the Trial Court Orders incorrectly dismissed the
criminal case, such error does not amount to a grave abuse of discretion that is
correctible by certiorari. 18
Meanwhile, in G.R. No. 237156, Jesuitas maintains the following as issues to be
resolved by the Court:
The Court of Appeals committed glaring errors contrary to the clear
mandate of law and jurisprudence, which, if duly corrected, would alter the results
of its decision.
I. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there was substantial
compliance with the requirements of [Section] 53.1 of the Securities
Regulation Code.
II. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that the absence of
preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the
case.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 III. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Jesuitas waived her
right to question the validity of the investigation conducted by the SEC. 19
Ruling of the Court
The petitions have no merit. The CA did not commit any reversible error when it
reinstated Criminal Case No. 08-1083 and remanded it to the RTC for further
proceedings.
It must be underscored that, when the OSG questioned the RTC's issuance of the
16 May and 23 November 2016 Orders before the CA, it did not question the RTC's
appreciation of the parties' evidence and the conclusions borne by such appreciation.
Rather, the OSG asserted that the RTC's orders were issued without or in excess of its
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. 20 We agree that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed before the CA
is the proper remedy.
Likewise, the CA correctly ruled that the RTC erred in its dismissal of the criminal
cases. Petitioners claim that the RTC did not have jurisdiction because they were
allegedly deprived of due process.
We examine the allegations of both parties through the lens of Section 53.1 of the
Securities Regulation Code (SRC). According to this provision, the SEC has discretion in
the conduct of investigations for violations of the SRC.
SEC. 53. Investigations, Injunctions and Prosecution of Offenses. —
53.1. The Commission may, in its discretion, make such
investigations as it deems necessary to determine whether any person
has violated or is about to violate any provision of this Code, any rule,
regulation or order thereunder, or any rule of an Exchange, registered securities
association, clearing agency, other self-regulatory organization, and may require
or permit any person to file with it a statement in writing, under oath or otherwise,
as the Commission shall determine, as to all facts and circumstances concerning
the matter to be investigated. The Commission may publish information
concerning any such violations, and to investigate any fact, condition, practice or
matter which it may deem necessary or proper to aid in the enforcement of the
provisions of this Code, in the prescribing of rules and regulations thereunder, or
in securing information to serve as a basis for recommending further legislation
concerning the matters to which this Code relates: Provided, however, That any
person requested or subpoenaed to produce documents or testify in any
investigation shall simultaneously be notified in writing of the purpose of such
investigation: Provided, further, That all criminal complaints for violations of
this Code, and the implementing rules and regulations enforced or administered
by the Commission shall be referred to the Department of Justice for
preliminary investigation and prosecution before the proper court:
Provided, furthermore, That in instances where the law allows independent civil or
criminal proceedings of violations arising from the same act, the Commission shall
take appropriate action to implement the same: Provided, finally, That the
investigation, prosecution, and trial of such cases shall be given priority.
Clearly, Section 53.1 does not prescribe the specific manner by which the SEC
shall make its investigations. The SEC has the discretion to determine what are
necessary in the conduct of its investigations. However, the SEC is mandated to refer
criminal complaints for violations of the SRC to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and
prosecution before the proper court.
Petitioners rely on Baviera v. Paglinawan (Baviera) 21 to assert their claim of lack
of jurisdiction due to absence of SEC investigation. However, Baviera is not on all fours
with the present petition. The facts in that case show that the private individual-
complainant directly filed with the DOJ a complaint for violation of Section 8.1 of the
SRC. In the present petition, the duped investors filed complaints before the SEC. The
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 SEC, after investigation, filed a complaint before the DOJ. We stated in Baviera:
The Court of Appeals held that under the above provision, a
criminal complaint for violation of any law or rule administered by the
SEC must first be filed with the latter. If the Commission finds that there
is probable cause, then it should refer the case to the DOJ. Since petitioner
failed to comply with the foregoing procedural requirement, the DOJ did not
gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing his complaint in I.S. No. 2004-229.
A criminal charge for violation of the Securities Regulation Code is a
specialized dispute. Hence, it must first be referred to an administrative agency of
special competence, i.e., the SEC. Under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction,
courts will not determine a controversy involving a question within the jurisdiction
of the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the exercise of sound
administrative discretion requiring the specialized knowledge and expertise of
said administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact.
The Securities Regulation Code is a special law. Its enforcement is particularly
vested in the SEC. Hence, all complaints for any violation of the Code and
its implementing rules and regulations should be filed with the SEC.
Where the complaint is criminal in nature, the SEC shall indorse the
complaint to the DOJ for preliminary investigation and prosecution as
provided in Section 53.1 earlier quoted.
We thus agree with the Court of Appeals that petitioner committed a
fatal procedural lapse when he filed his criminal complaint directly with
the DOJ. Verily, no grave abuse of discretion can be ascribed to the DOJ in
dismissing petitioner's complaint. 22
We underscore our ruling in Baviera that a criminal complaint for violation of any
law or rule administered by the SEC must first be filed before it. There is a "fatal
procedural lapse" only when the criminal complaint is filed directly with the DOJ.
Petitioners further rely on Pua v. Citibank, N.A. 23 to bolster their claims. Like
Baviera, the ruling in Pua does not concern itself with a mandated notice of investigation
from the SEC. Rather, Pua emphasizes the difference between the filing of civil and
criminal suits falling under the SRC. Thus:
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that cases falling under Section 57 of the
SRC, which pertain to civil liabilities arising from violations of the requirements for
offers to sell or the sale of securities, as well as other civil suits under Sections 56,
58, 59, 60, and 61 of the SRC shall be exclusively brought before the
regional trial courts. It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that the
term "shall" is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be
given a compulsory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory.
Likewise, it is equally revelatory that no SRC provision of similar import is found in
its sections governing criminal suits; quite the contrary, the SRC states that
criminal cases arising from violations of its provisions should be first referred to
the SEC.
Therefore, based on these considerations, it stands to reason that civil suits
falling under the SRC are under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the regional
trial courts and hence, need not be first filed before the SEC, unlike criminal cases
wherein the latter body exercises primary jurisdiction.
All told, petitioners' filing of a civil suit against respondent for purported
violations of the SRC was properly filed directly before the RTC. 24
Petitioners themselves do not dispute that complaint-affidavits were filed by
complainants-investors before the SEC prior to the SEC's referral of the case to the DOJ.
Petitioners filed their respective counter-affidavits before the DOJ. The DOJ conducted a
preliminary investigation with petitioners' full participation. Petitioners cannot claim,
after seven years from the filing of the Information, that they were deprived of due
process at the SEC level.
We thus agree with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion when
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 it granted petitioners' motions to dismiss.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petitions are hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the Decision dated 10 July 2017 and the Resolution dated 05 January 2018
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149445 are AFFIRMED.
The Court further resolves to DECONSOLIDATE G.R. No. 237265 from G.R. Nos.
236620, 236802, and 237156, an Entry of Judgment having been made on 11 October
2018 in this case. CAIHTE

SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Hernando, Rosario and Marquez, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. A fourth petition, filed by Nicoline A. Mendoza in G.R. No. 237265, was dismissed in a
Resolution dated 25 June 2018 for failure of petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA
committed any reversible error in the challenged decision and resolution as to warrant
the exercise of this Court' discretionary appellate jurisdiction; rollo, pp. 164-165 (G.R. No.
232765); Entry of Judgment was made on 11 October 2018.
2. Rollo, pp. 44-58 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 32-47 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 283-296
(G.R. No. 237156); Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by
Associate Justices Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of
this Court).
3. Rollo, pp. 60-62 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 32-47 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 283-296
(G.R. No. 237156); Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia and concurred in by
Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of
this Court).

4. Rollo, pp. 99-100 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 135-136 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 174-
175 (G.R. No. 237156); Penned by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.

5. Rollo, p. 101 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , p. 149 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , p. 200 (G.R. No.
237156); Penned by Presiding Judge Benjamin T. Pozon.
6. Entitled "THE SECURITIES AND REGULATION CODE," n approved on 19 July 2000.

7. Rollo, p. n (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , p. 149 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , p. 200 (G.R. No.
237156).

8. Rollo, pp. 45-49 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 4-38 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 285-289
(G.R. No. 237156).
9. Rollo, pp. 99-100 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 135-136 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 174-
175 (G.R. No. 237156).
10. Rollo, p. 100 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , p. 136 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , p. 175 (G.R. No.
237156).

11. Rollo, pp. 344-356 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 137-148 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 299-
306 (G.R. No. 237156).

12. Rollo, p. 101 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , p. 149 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , p. 200 (G.R. No.
237156).
13. Rollo, pp. 63-94 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 150-181 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 201-233
(G.R. No. 237156).

14. Rollo, p. 58 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , p. 47 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , p. 296 (G.R. No.
237156); Id. at n (G.R. No. 236620).

15. Rollo, pp. 59-62 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 48-51 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 311-314
(G.R. No. 237156).
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 16. Rollo, pp. 384-392 (G.R. No. 236620); Rollo , pp. 396-401 (G.R. No. 236802); Rollo , pp. 324-
329 (G.R. No. 237156).

17. Rollo, pp. 20-21 (G.R. No. 236620).

18. Id. at 10-11.

19. Rollo, p. 23 (G.R. No. 237156).

20. RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Section 1.

21. 544 Phil. 107 (2007).

22. Id. at 118-119; Emphasis supplied.

23. 718 Phil. 1 (2013).

24. Id. at 10; Citation omitted; Emphasis in the original.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document. "THE SECURITIES AND
REGULATION CODE" should be "THE SECURITIES REGULATION CODE"

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from official document.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com