Orestes Salazar, et al. vs. Ireneo Mendoza, et al.

[SEC CASE NO. 2661. November 13, 1987.] ORESTES SALAZAR, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . IRENEO MENDOZA, ET AL. , respondents . O R D E R For resolution is a Motion filed by petitioners thru counsel, praying for the reconsideration of the Decision dated March 30, 1987, and the Opposition thereto. SCIcTD Petitioners alleged that the said decision failed to award damages as well as attorney's fees to the herein petitioner and the costs of the suit. It was argued that on the basis of the evidence presented, it is crystal clear that damages should be awarded based on the prayer of the petition for dissolution and accounting with damages. Further, petitioners contend that this Commission has jurisdiction to award damages pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 902-A Section 6, paragraph (F) and (J) thereof . . . . IASTDE Moreover, petitioners cited the case of Rufino Tan vs. Lawag Fonacier, et al., AC-G.R. No. 01125, January 22, 1965, wherein the Honorable Court of Appeals ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission is empowered to exercise such powers as are impliedly necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the express powers granted to the Commission or to achieve the objectives and purposes of said P.D. 902-A; that the said Commission has also the power to impose damages. DaHcAS In the instant motion, it is our considered view that the allegations and arguments raised therein are not tenable. It is true that the award of damages except liquidated damages and attorneys fees are given in the exercise of sound discretion. (RCPI vs. Court of Appeals 103 SCRA 359). However, in the case of Onapal Philippine Commodities, Inc., vs. Hon. Pricila S. Agona, et al., AC-G.R. SP No. 03068-R, August 20, 1984, it was there ruled: "Nowhere in the foregoing is there any authority to the Securities and Exchange Commission to award damages claimed by private respondent. Neither can such authority be deemed implied, necessary or incidental to the carrying out of the express powers granted to the Commission to achieve the objective and purposes of the Decree. The Securities and Exchange Commission is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction and, as such, can wield only such powers as are specifically granted to it by its enabling statutes (Union Glass and Container Corporation vs. Securities and Exchange Commission , 126 SCRA 31, 39 (1983). No power can be enforced from those expressly granted which is alien to them. The award of damages of the kind sought by private respondent is not one that can be reasonably enforced from any of the powers granted by the decree to the Securities and Exchange Commission. From our reading of the powers granted, the Securities and Exchange Commission may penalize or fine an erring Corporation, or suspend or revoke its franchise or certificate of registration, but not award damages to aggrieved parties." SEACTH From the afore-quoted decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, it is quite clear that this Commission has no jurisdiction over the claim for damages of the petitioners. Anent the award of attorney's fees, the same is a matter essentially discretionary with the trial court. (de Santos vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-21677, June 29, 1972, 45 SCRA 409). Besides, an adverse decision does not ipso facto justify the award of attorney's fees to the winning party. (Ramos vs. Ramos, 61 SCRA 284) WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. Hearing Officer