Sy Chin v. Tang Chin Heng

June 30, 2015 SEC-AC NO. 467 (SEC Case No. 03946) SY CHIN, SY HEN, TANG TUBI, TANG ANDRES, TANG FELINO, NIEVES KE TEK TANG, ANNIE KE TEK TANG, PENNIE CHUA TANG, LENIE TANG, ZENNIE KE TEK TANG, FELICIA KE TEK TANG, ONG SO HUA, JUDY ALONZO, EDUARDO ALONZO, SUSAN ALONZO, and WILFREDO ALONZO , petitioners , vs. TANG CHIN HENG & COMPANY, TANG CHIN HENG & WILLIAM TANG also known as TANG KONG SIA , respondents . ORDER For resolution are (1) the Motion to Release Rentals , filed by petitioners on December 11, 2006, and (2) the Motion to Relieve , filed by petitioners on April 7, 1995. I On February 5, 1981, petitioners filed a Petition , entitled "In the Matter of the Petition for the Dissolution and Liquidation of Tang Chin Heng and Co. with Prayer for a Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction and Appointment of a Receiver." On April 16, 1991, respondents filed their Answer with Counterclaim . On April 30, 1991, petitioners filed their Reply with Answer to Counterclaim . On May 10, 1991, respondents filed their Rejoinder to Petitioner's Reply . II The Honorable Supreme Court summarized the case before the Commission in its findings of facts in Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals , G.R. No. 136233, November 23, 2000, as follows: aDSIHc Sometime in 1952, the brothers Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang, Ricardo Alonzo a.k.a. Tang Kong Suy, Tang Chin Heng and William Tang a.k.a. Tang Kong Sia formed a partnership under the name of Tang Chin Heng & Company. The partnership had a term of existence of 25 years counted from January 1, 1953. After the death of Tang Chin, Feliciano Tang and Tang Kong Suy, conflicts arose from their heirs (herein petitioners) and the surviving partners (private respondents) because of the company's failure to render an accounting and non-distribution of profits. In order to settle their differences, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Federation of Filipino Chinese Chamber of Commerce. On March 11, 1975, an agreement was executed which reads: KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 11th day of March, 1975 at the City of Manila, Philippines, by and among: TANG CHIN HENG, of legal age, married and a resident of 1100 C.M. Recto Ave., Manila; WILLIAM TANG, of legal age, married, and a resident of 1100 C.M. Recto, Manila; NIEVES KE TEK, of legal age, widow of Feliciano Tang, and a resident of 41 Quezon Blvd. Ext., Quezon City; CO SIOK ENG YAP, of legal age, widow of Tang Shing, and a resident of 968 Severino Reyes St., Manila; and ONG SO HUA, of legal age, widow of Ricardo T. Alonzo, and a resident of 41 Quezon Blvd. Ext., Quezon City; THAT WHEREAS, the above-named parties are all closely related Tang Chin Heng and William Tang being full-blood brothers while Nieves Ke Tek, Co Siok Eng Yap, and Ong So Hua are the widows of Feliciano Tang, Tang Shing, and Ricardo T. Alonzo, respectively, all of whom were blood brothers of Tang Chin Heng and William Tang; ETHIDa WHEREAS, the above parties are the common owners of the following properties, both real and personal, although the titles thereto may have been placed in the names of one or more of them, to wit: 1) A parcel of land, together with all the building and improvements existing thereon, situated at 1100 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila; with an area of 1,105 square meters, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificate of 'Title No. 49002 in the name of Feliciano Tang; 2) A parcel of land situated at 1100 C.M. Recto Avenue, Manila, with an area of 26.90 square meters, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 70215 in the name of Feliciano Tang; 3) A parcel of land, together with all the improvements existing thereon, situated at 41 Quezon Blvd. Ext., Quezon City, with an area of 1,385.6 square meters, more or less, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 38807 in the name of Feliciano Tang; and 4) All the automotive parts, electrical supplies, and general merchandise of the Tang Chin Heng & Co., with office at 1100 C.M. Recto, Manila; WHEREAS, the above-named parties have now agreed to divide the above-described properties, both real and personal, among themselves in as just, fair, and equitable manner as possible but somehow have encountered difficulties in their efforts to do so; and WHEREAS, in a sincere desire to settle their differences once and for all, they have unanimously decided to refer the same to the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce, in whose sense of justice and fairness they repose absolute and complete confidence; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and of the covenants hereinafter appearing, the above-named parties have agreed, the one with the other, to refer to the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce the settlement of their differences insofar as the distribution and division of the properties above-described are concerned and further bind themselves, their heirs, administrators and assigns, to accept as final and irrevocable whatever decision the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce may deem fair, just, and equitable in the premises. cSEDTC On February 5, 1991, considering the death of the three original partners and the expiration of the life of the partnership, the petitioners filed a petition for dissolution and liquidation of the partnership with the SEC. This was docketed as SEC Case No. 3946. Since what remained to be done was the liquidation of the partnership assets and business, the petitioners prayed that the manager, Tang Chin Heng render an accounting, and that a receiver be appointed in order to administer, manage and dispose of the partnership assets and thereafter take charge of distributing the profits due them. As prayed for, Atty. Joaquin Garaygay was appointed Receiver of the company. On February 9, 1993, the Hearing Officer of the SEC rendered a decision. Based on the report of the Receiver, he affirmed that the following are partnership properties which shall be distributed to the partners/heirs in proportion to their contribution in accordance to the Articles of the Partnership: Real Estate: 1) Four (4) Storey concrete building and lot situated at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila with a land area of 1,105 square meters under TCT No. 49002. 2) A parcel of land situated at 1100 C.M. Recto Ave., Manila with an area of 26.90 square meters under TCT No. 70215. 3) Four (4) storey house and lot located at 41 Quezon Blvd. Ext., Quezon City with an area of 1,385.6 square meters under TCT No. 38807. Personal Property: Automobile parts, electrical supplies and general merchandising of Tang Chin Heng & Co.; . . . The petitioners moved for a partial reconsideration of the decision. They averred that the properties should be divided equally among the partners or their heirs and assigns in accordance with the 1975 Agreement. The motion was denied by the hearing officer in an Order dated August 11, 1993. The petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal but this was not perfected due to their failure to file the Memorandum on Appeal and to pay the docket fees within the period provided for by the Revised Rules of Procedure of the SEC. Consequently, a motion for execution was filed by the private respondents on October 28, 1993 which was granted by the hearing officer on January 5, 1994. Petitioners filed an opposition thereto asserting that there was a need to check/investigate the information that some of the partnership properties were already adjudicated to Feliciano Tang's heirs in an Intestate Proceeding before the then Court of First Instance of Manila in 1964. The Opposition was denied. SDAaTC Thus, petitioners went up to the Commission En Banc. Private respondents filed an opposition asserting that the SEC no longer had jurisdiction over the case considering that the decision of the hearing officer had already become final and executory. The SEC, nonetheless, took cognizance of the case and disposed it in this wise: Since the alleged CFI adjudication in the Intestate Proceeding has not, as yet, been duly established however, and this appeal, having been treated as an action to annul the questioned orders of the hearing officer, we are constrained, as we HEREBY RESOLVE to remand the case to the department of origin for proper action. All other motions filed in relation herewith are, by this DECISION, likewise referred to the Securities Investigation and Clearing Department of (sic) its disposition. SO ORDERED. A Motion for Reconsideration/Clarification was filed by the private respondents but this was denied by the SEC Commission en banc . A petition for certiorari was consequently filed with the Court of Appeals assailing the SEC decision. On August 18, 1998, the CA ruled that the SEC acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The dispositive portion of the decision reads as follows: WHEREFORE, finding merit in the petition, the Court issues the writ of certiorari and annuls the Decision dated December 6, 1995 and the Resolution dated July 25, 1997 of the respondent Commission. The subsequent motion for reconsideration was, likewise, denied. . . . (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_136233_2000.html; pp. 1-3 [print preview]) The Honorable Supreme Court disposed of the issues as follows: The respondent court did not commit reversible error when it ruled that it was not legally justifiable for the SEC to take cognizance of petitioner's "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." As can be gleaned from the records, the Decision of the Hearing Officer rendered on February 9, 1993 to which a timely motion for partial reconsideration was filed had already become final and executory for petitioner's failure to perfect their appeal to the SEC en banc . We quote the respondent court's finding on this matter: The most critical incidents that transpired in the respondent Commission were these: The SEC Hearing Officer rendered on February 9, 1993 a Decision to which the private respondents timely filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration. On August 24, 1993, within the reglementary period, private respondents filed their Notice of Appeal (sic) said Decision and Order denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration to the SEC en banc. However, they failed to pay the docket fee and file a Memorandum on Appeal. Section 3, Rule XVI of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the SEC states: acEHCD Section 3. How Appeal is Taken: When Perfected. Appeal may be taken by filing with the Hearing Officer who promulgated the decision, order or ruling within thirty (30) days from notice thereof, and serving upon the adverse party, notice of appeal and a memorandum on appeal and paying the corresponding docket fee therefor. The appeal shall be considered perfected upon the filing of the memorandum on the appeal and payment of the docket fee within the period hereinabove fixed. (Amended). In the light of said rule, it is as clear as a dew that the appeal to the SEC en banc was not perfected and resultantly, the Decision of February 9, 1993 has become final and executory. There was, therefore, nothing for the SEC en banc to review. The latter implicitly conceded that the appeal was not perfected but is nonetheless took cognizance of it upon the justification that the same can be treated as a "direct attack against the orders of the hearing officer, the purpose of which is to annul the same. Obviously, the respondent Commission took cognizance of the case and acted upon it as a petition for review on certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule XII of its Rules. This is for certain because aside from an appeal treated in Rule XVI and petition for review on certiorari under Rule XV, there is no other way to elevate a decision or order of a hearing officer to the Commission en banc. Was there any legal justification for the respondent Commission en banc in doing so? What it did was no more than a procedural dribble which is unacceptable. Sec. 1, Rule XV of the SEC Rules in reference to a petition for certiorari with the Commission en banc requires that there must be a verified petition alleging facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the questioned order or ruling as the law requires. Sec. 2 thereof requires the payment of a docket fee. In the case at bench, there was no such a verified petition nor payment of docket fees. This Court rules that under the circumstances, the Commission en banc acted without jurisdiction or at least in excess of jurisdiction when it rendered the Decision on December 6, 1995 and Resolution dated July 25, 1997. xxx xxx xxx. It is the well-established rule that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional and the failure to perfect the appeal has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. As such, execution shall issue as a matter of right to the winning party. Rule 39, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure explicitly provides that "Execution shall issue as a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding, upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been duly perfected." Pursuant to this rule, it was proper for the Hearing Officer to have granted the respondents' motion for a writ of execution on January 5, 1995 after the petitioners have failed to perfect their appeal. It must be noted that petitioners' appeal to the Commission en banc was an appeal on the order of execution which is not permissible under the rules. The order granting the motion for writ of execution is not appealable as provided under Rule 41, Section 1 which states: SECTION 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. SDHTEC No appeal may be taken from: xxx xxx xxx (f) An order of execution. Clearly, therefore, the SEC committed grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of jurisdiction when it entertained petitioners' appeal and treated it as a direct attack against the orders of the hearing officer. This in effect re-opened the case that has already become final and executory. Time and again, this Court has made the pronouncement that there must be an end to every litigation. Once a judgment becomes final, executory and unappealable, the prevailing party should not be denied the fruits of his victory by some subterfuge devised by the losing party. Petitioners maintained that the SEC did not in fact alter the decision of the hearing officer. It merely remanded the case to the department of origin for the purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction over the properties which are sought to be distributed to the heirs. This was due to the fact that "it came to their (petitioners) knowledge very recently that the real properties in Manila and Quezon City had already been adjudicated to the heirs of Feliciano Tang in the Intestate Estate Proceeding before the then CFI of Manila in 1964" and there was a need to "conduct an investigation to check the veracity thereof." This contention is untenable. A careful perusal of the records reveals that the list of partnership properties was never an issue in this case. From the decision of the Hearing Officer dated February 9, 1993, petitioners moved for a partial reconsideration of the decision as regards to the manner of distribution of the partnership assets only. No one questioned the list of properties or asserted that some of the properties belong to any of the heirs particularly to the heirs of Feliciano Tang. In the March 11, 1975 Agreement executed before the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and notarized by Atty. Eriberto H. Decena, the parties acknowledged that the properties listed therein are partnership assets commonly owned by the partners although the titles thereto may have been placed in the names of one or more of them. The prefatory clause of said agreement reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx WHEREAS, the above parties are the common owners of the following properties, both real and personal, although the titles thereto may have been in the names of one or more of them. xxx xxx xxx Nieves Ke Tek, the widow of Feliciano Tang was a signatory to this agreement. This agreement which was executed ten (10) years after the 1964 CFI decision served as an acknowledgment that the subject properties were not part of the estate of Feliciano Tang but belonged to the partnership. Apparently, titles of the subject properties were allowed by the other partners to be registered under Feliciano Tang's name. The 1975 Agreement was never questioned by any of the petitioners. Neither was the report of the receiver assailed when he found the same properties to be belonging to the partnership. Petitioners can not now claim that there must have been a mistake in including among the list certain properties that allegedly belong to the heirs of Feliciano Tang. AScHCD Moreover, it is quite inconceivable that "such information has reached the petitioners only recently" as to warrant the annulment of the order of the hearing officer. The project of partition of the intestate estate of Feliciano Tang was submitted to the trial court in 1964. The agreement executed by the heirs and the surviving partners before the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce acknowledging the properties to be commonly owned by the partners commenced in 1975. The decision of the hearing officer declaring the list of properties as belonging to the partnership was rendered in 1993. It was only after the order granting the writ of execution was issued in 1995 that the petitioners questioned the list of properties. This issue which was belatedly raised can not be countenanced. It was obviously an afterthought considering that petitioners have lost their cause after the decision adverse to them became final and executory for their failure to perfect their appeal on time. The law cannot protect those who sleep on their rights. Finally, the petitioners aver that the respondent court should have outrightly dismissed the petition for certiorari for failure to comply with the requirements on non-forum shopping. While it is true that the petition may have been flawed as the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, suffice it to say that this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, we likewise find no reversible error with the respondent court's evaluation that there is prima facie merit in the petition. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 18, 1998 is AFFIRMED. (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/nov2000/gr_136233_2000.html; pp. 3-5 [print preview]) III On August 3, 2001, the respondents filed their Ex-Parte Motion to Transfer to RTC and/or Implement Execution , where, after stating, among others, that: 13. The petitioners filed a Petition with the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court in its Decision dated November 23, 2000, denied the same by upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals. A certified true copy of said Decision is hereto attached as Annex "A." 14. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and to submit the case to the Supreme Court en banc. The Honorable Supreme Court denied said motion with finality in its Resolution dated February 21, 2001. A certified true copy of said Resolution is hereto attached as Annex "B." 15. Pursuant to R.A. No. 8799, this case has to be transferred to the Regional Trial Court of Manila since most of the parties if not all are from Manila, for the issuance of the writ of execution and/or implementation of the same. AcICHD they prayed that: . . . proper action be taken by this Honorable Commission to cause the implementation of the February 9, 1993 Decision of the Honorable SEC Hearing Officer as upheld by the Honorable Supreme Court and/or to transfer the same to the proper Regional Trial Court of Manila for purposes of execution pursuant to R.A. No. 8799. On February 26, 2002, the Commission en banc granted the Motion for Writ of Execution filed by respondents, thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondents' Motion for Execution is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, let the Writ of Execution issue for the enforcement and satisfaction of the Decision of Hearing Officer Alberto P. Atas dated February 9, 1993. Let a formal request be made to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila to designate a Sheriff, who is hereby deputized, to enforce the Writ of Execution. The petitioners are hereby advised that no motion for reconsideration of this Order shall be entertained by the Commission. SO ORDERED. On February 27, 2002, a Writ of Execution was issued by Commissioner Ma. Juanita E. Cueto for the Commission en banc. IV On December 11, 2006, petitioners filed a Motion to Release Rentals for the amount of (P954,954.35) to be paid to the City Treasurer of Manila to cover twenty-five (25%) percent of the tax delinquency of the real estate property located at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila. It was stated therein, as follows: 1. On February 27, 2002, a Writ of Execution was issued by the Honorable Commission in the above-entitled case . . . . 2. That the Honorable Commission requested the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila to enforce and implement the decision it rendered on February 9, 1993. 3. Pending the implementation of the abovementioned decision, the Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila, Mr. Louie Alina acted as the collector and receiver of the rentals collected from one (1) of the properties covered by the Writ of Execution, a four (4) story concrete building and lot situated at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila with a land area of 1,105 square meters under TCT No. 49002. 4. As of September 19, 2006 the amount of rentals collected by the sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), and deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC) is P1,293,691.92 . . . . TAIaHE 5. Prior to petitioners' obtention of this certification on August 4, 2006 respondents and petitioners received a Notice of Tax Delinquency on one of the properties, a four (4) storey building and lot situated at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila with a land area of 1,105 square meters (Tax Declaration No. C-028-00001 and TD No. C-028-00002 under TCT# 49002) covered by the Writ of Execution from the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila . . . . 6. In view of this development and the inaction of the respondents, undersigned counsel of the petitioners wrote a letter to Ms. Liberty M. Toledo, City Treasurer of Manila, explaining the reasons why the real estate taxes over the abovementioned properties were not paid on time and requested for an extension of time for the settlement of these tax delinquencies and suspension of the forthcoming auction sale . . . . 7. On September 7, 2006, petitioners' counsel received a letter from Ms. Liberty M. Toledo, City Treasurer of Manila, granting its request for suspension of the public auction of the real estate properties and directed petitioners to coordinate with the City's Real Estate Division for the negotiation and payment of tax delinquency on installment basis. 8. Sometime on November, 2006 petitioners went to the Real Estate Division, Manila and talked to a certain Mr. Elinar N. Jose of the Real Estate Division and obtained the following Statement of Accounts of Land and Building . . . . 9. Since the petitioners do not have the financial capacity to pay the total tax delinquency, they just agreed to pay the downpayment of the tax delinquency for the land which is P954,954.35 (25% of the tax delinquency). 10. Petitioners also decided that the payment of the 25% tax delinquency shall come from the collected rentals over the property and deposited at the Office of the Sheriff, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila. 11. They also agreed that the remaining balance of the tax delinquency for the land which shall be payable in thirty-six (36) equal installments in the sum of P79,579.53 shall come from the monthly collections of rentals over the real estate properties subject of the tax delinquency. 12. Petitioners' actions were undertaken in order to salvage the real estate properties concerned which are the subject of an auction sale next year (2001) by the City of Manila. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioners respectfully pray of the Honorable Commission that an Order be issued directing the Office of the Sheriff/Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila: 1. To release and pay the amount of Nine Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand, Nine Hundred Fifty-Four & 35/100 Pesos (P954,954.35) to the City Treasurer of Manila for the payment of tax delinquency of the real estate properties located at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila. cDHAES 2. To release every month the sum of P79,599.13 from the collections made on the real estate properties covered by TCT# 49002 to the City Treasurer of Manila as installment payment to the tax delinquency of the real estate properties. The Office of the General Counsel issued a Notice of Conference to have the motion discussed, as follows: Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance Securities and Exchange Commission SEC Bldg. EDSA, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL SEC-AC No. 467 (SEC CASE NO. 3946) SY CHIN, SY HEN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. TANG CHIN HENG & CO., TANG CHIN HENG AND WILLIAM TANG, respondents. TO: April 4, 2007 * Atty. JOAQUIN GARAYGAY THE ADDRESSEE IS NO LONGER Receiver, Tang Chin Heng & Co. HOLDING OFFICE IN THIS 136 14th Avenue, Cubao ADDRESS ANYMORE Quezon City April 10, 2007 SY CHIN, SY HEN, et al. c/o Atty. DANIEL ABELLA counsel for Petitioners c/o Material Handling Systems, Inc. 2nd Floor Manhattan Enterprises Building 920 Banawe St., S.F.D.M. Quezon City TANG CHIN HENG AND WILLIAM TANG c/o PALABRICA LAW OFFICE counsel for Respondents 39 Kirishima Street BF International, Las Pias City Notice of Conference In view of the need to clarify certain matters regarding the motion to release funds, you are hereby directed to attend a conference with the undersigned on April 20, 2007 at 2:00 in the afternoon at the Office of the General Counsel, 9th Floor SEC Building, EDSA Ortigas, Greenhills, Mandaluyong City. (SGD.) JAIME C.N. ARROYO Securities Review Counsel During the conference, the following matters were discussed: Minutes of Conference Case/Case No. : SY CHIN, et al. vs. TANG CHIN HENG & CO., et al. (SEC-AC No. 467 [SEC CASE NO. 3946]) Date/Time : 20 April 2007, 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Persons Present : Atty. JAIME ARROYO Hearing Officer Mr. FELINO TANG, Party Mr. ALFONSO PO, Companion of Mr. Tang Mr. GEORGE TANG Atty. EMMANUEL P. ALABRICA The parties arrived promptly at 2:00, with Mr. Felino Tang arriving last. The first and primary focus of discussion was the settlement of the tax liabilities incurred on the property of the defunct partnership. (It should be stated at the outset that every time a party mentioned a certain fact specifically pertaining to Atty. Garaygay, everyone present would agree on its truth, so they were unanimous as to their knowledge of him). ASEcHI The hearing officer started off by stating that he would try to have Atty. Garaygay relieved of his duty to collect on the rentals and make disbursements, in view of his longtime absence from the record and in view of the failure of all attempts to make contact with him. The persons present alleged that Atty. Garaygay has at least P10 million in his custody, and that he was receiving a salary of over P200,000/month as receiver. Those present also agreed that Garaygay could not be found at any of his three addresses. Mr. Po mentioned that he had addresses in Marikina, Cubao and in West Triangle. The parties mentioned that a certain Jojo Sia (later revealed to be Joseph Sia) served as Atty. Garaygay's collector, and Mr. Po committed to furnish the hearing officer with his address the following Monday. The only other matter discussed at length, aside from Atty. Garaygay and the settlement of the taxes, was the fact that the title of the parcel of land in question remained in the name of individuals, even though it had been adjudged to belong to the partnership. As this matter was one for the parties, not the Commission, to resolve, the Hearing Officer did not take notes on the discussion anymore as the parties discussed among themselves how to effect the change of title, although the Hearing Officer pointed out the anomaly of attempting to transfer title from a natural person to a defunct juridical person. The idea was then for the parties to transfer the property into the names of the heirs of the partnership. The meeting concluded with Mr. Po committing to send the Hearing Officer the documents mentioned. The December 11, 2006 Motion to Release Rentals should be granted. The tax delinquency should be settled immediately and in this regard, the Commission should issue a Request for the Honorable Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila to cause, within ten days from receipt of an Order from said Honorable Regional Trial Court, the release of the amount of (P954,954.35) to the City Treasurer of Manila for the payment of twenty-five (25%) percent of the tax delinquency of the real estate property located at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila. V On April 7, 1995, petitioners filed a Motion to Relieve the Receiver Atty. Joaquin Garaygay due to his failure to render an accounting of his receivership, thus: 1. On October 4, 1991, an Order was issued by this Honorable Office appointing and designating Atty. Joaquin Garaygay as the Receiver of the above-named partnership; 2. That from the time the said Receiver was appointed up to the present, no accounting and inventory had ever been made by the said receiver. Worse, he failed to exercise his duties as a good father of the family when he failed to extract an accounting/inventory of management conducted by respondent Tang Chin Heng. All this at the expense of the partnership and its partners; ITAaHc 3. Petitioners can no longer tolerate the seeming lack of competence and dedication to duty of the receiver. For several occasions, petitioner had requested him to render an accounting. To their dismay, inspite of promises made, none had been done. As a matter of fact, we had filed a Motion to Render Accounting dated April 1993. Inspite of such formal pleading, the Receiver failed. To permit him further to continue administering the affairs of the partnership without any conceivable positive result would be injurious to reason. All at the prejudice of the partnership. WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, it is prayed that Atty. Joaquin Garaygay be relieved of his duties as Receiver of Tang Chin Heng and Company and that he be ordered to: 1. To render an accounting/inventory of his management of the partnership; 2. To turn over all documents, moneys, papers and other writing which came into his possession by reason of his receivership. On July 19, 1995, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion , reiterating its prayers in their Motion to Relieve, to wit: 2. That to date, respondents and the receiver had not filed any comment/reaction thereto; 3. That for a considerable period of time already, the receiver had been continuously administering the properties of the partnership without making any inventory/accounting of his management of the affairs thereof, all at the prejudice of the herein parties; 4. That to further permit the receiver to administer the affairs of the partnership, without the correspondent accounting/inventory would be like rubbing salt to wound. To recall, part of the discussion in the April 20, 2007 Conference was regarding the Receiver, as follows: The hearing officer started off by stating that he would try to have Atty. Garaygay relieved of his duty to collect on the rentals and make disbursements, in view of his longtime absence from the record and in view of the failure of all attempts to make contact with him. The persons present alleged that Atty. Garaygay has at least P10 million in his custody, and that he was receiving a salary of over P200,000/month as receiver. Those present also agreed that Garaygay could not be found at any of his three addresses. Mr. Po mentioned that he had addresses in Marikina, Cubao and in West Triangle. On October 18, 1995, Receiver Atty. Garaygay filed his Manifestation wherein he explained why he could not render an accounting and an inventory of the properties of the partnership, thus: CHTAIc As to the matter of the undersigned's relief as receiver, he is willing to tender his withdrawal or resignation anytime if the petitioners so insist or, if not, after the clearances are secured for the dissolution, liquidation and accounting of assets, funds of the partnership. Mr. Felino Tang executed an Affidavit (notarized May 25, 2007; no stamp of SEC indicating when the same was filed) wherein he stated, among others, that: 2. I was among the movants who filed a motion dated December 6, 2006 for the release of rentals in order to pay a tax delinquency on one of the properties involved in this case. 3. As much as possible, I would prefer that Atty. Joaquin Garaygay, the receiver of Tang Chin Heng & Co., be relieved of the responsibility of settling of the tax deficiency mentioned in my motion, or of any of the funds of Tang Chin Heng & Co., because although he is the duly-appointed receiver of the partnership, he is currently nowhere to be found. All attempts to contact him at his three addresses have been unsuccessful, and his whereabouts have yet to be determined. 4. Furthermore, he has, to date, failed to submit any accounting in clear violation of his duties as receiver, and has in his custody millions of pesos belonging to the partnership. The Motion to Relieve and Urgent Motion should be granted. The Honorable Supreme Court has already written finis to the controversy among the heirs, widows and surviving partners. As in fact, Sheriff Alina has been collecting rentals from a four (4) storey building and lot situated at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila with a land area of 1,105 square meters. The allegations that the receiver has around P10 million of partnership money in his custody but has not rendered an accounting are very serious. It therefore becomes imperative for the Commission En Banc to issue motu proprio an Order directing Atty. Garaygay to appear before the Commission in order to explain to the Commission his failure to discharge his duties for over a decade and to show cause why he should not be held liable for contempt and be punished accordingly. Attached is a show cause order, which should be sent to his 2 addresses in the case record, namely (1) 136 14th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City, and (2) 43A Times Street, West Triangle, Quezon City. Judgment ACCORDINGLY, the Commission: 1. GRANTS petitioners' April 7, 1995 Motion to Relieve and December 11, 2006 Motion to Release Rentals ; 2. DIRECTS the Office of the General Counsel to SEND a Letter of Request to the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila by way of assistance for the issuance of an Order to the Sheriff of Manila to cause the release of the amount of (P954,954.35) to the City Treasurer of Manila for the payment of tax delinquency of the real estate properties located at 1100 Claro M. Recto Ave., Manila; and EATCcI 3. DIRECTS the Office of the General Counsel to issue an Order to Show Cause to Atty. Joaquin G. Garaygay, at his last addresses on record, in order for him to explain to the Commission his failure to discharge his duties as a receiver for over a decade and to show cause why he should not be held liable for contempt and be punished accordingly. SO ORDERED. City of Mandaluyong, Philippines. (SGD.) TERESITA J. HERBOSA Chairperson (SGD.) ANTONIETA F. IBE Commissioner (SGD.) MANUEL HUBERTO B. GAITE Commissioner (SGD.) BLAS JAMES G. VITERBO Commissioner (SGD.) EPHYRO LUIS B. AMATONG Commissioner