In re Hector Pantollana

March 16, 2023 SEC CDO CASE NO. 02-23-098 IN THE MATTER OF: HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG AND ERWIN L. BANGALAN ET AL. , respondents , ENFORCEMENT AND INVESTOR PROTECTION DEPARTMENT (EIPD) , movant . CEASE AND DESIST ORDER Before this Commission is the Petition for Issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (the "Petition") dated 21 February 2023 filed by the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (EIPD) on 20 February 2023, praying that a Cease and Desist Order be issued directing Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD (the "Respondents"), and their operators, directors, officers, representatives, salesmen, agents, enablers, influencers and any and all persons, conduit entities and subsidiaries claiming and acting for and in their behalf (the "Agents"), to immediately cease and desist from further engaging in the sale/offer of securities in the form of investment contracts for want of the requisite registration statement, and the permits to offer/sell securities. HTcADC The EIPD also prays that Respondents and their Agents be prohibited from transacting any and all business involving the funds in their respective depository banks, and from transferring, disposing, or conveying in any other manner, any and all assets, properties, real or personal, including bank deposits, if any, of which the named persons herein may have any interest, claim or participation whatsoever, whether directly or indirectly, under their custody, without the prior written authority from the Commission. 1 PARTIES Movant, EIPD is one of the Commission's operating departments tasked, among others, to investigate motu proprio or upon complaint or referral, violations of laws, rules and regulations administered, implemented, or issued by the Commission, and to seek the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) whenever warranted by the circumstance. 2 Respondent HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB (HPC) is an entity that is not registered with the Commission either as a corporation or as a partnership. Respondent PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE (PNEL) is an entity that is not registered with the Commission either as a corporation or as a partnership. CAIHTE Respondent TEAM Z is an entity that is not registered with the Commission either as a corporation or as a partnership. Respondent HECTOR ALDWIN LIAO PANTOLLANA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 5, Lot 8c, Phase I, West Siniguelas Street, Camella SPV, Molino III, Bacoor, Cavite City. Respondent ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 5, Lot 8c, Phase I, West Siniguelas Street, Camella SPV, Molino III, Bacoor, Cavite City. Respondent REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent QUARRY QUIENG, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent KIM MEJICA, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent DANIEL AGBISIT, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent JM ALMODIENTE, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. Respondent CJ QUINZON, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at 6th Floor, Frabelle Alabang Building, 1100 Madrigal Business Park Zapote, Alabang, Muntinlupa. aScITE Respondent VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, is of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at House for Less, Unit C, Henson Building, Fil-Am Friendship Highway, Angeles, Pampanga. Respondent GUMBA MARTINADA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 4, Lot II, Canacao Homes 2, Fraternidad San Juan II, Noveleta Cavite and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor, Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent RONALDO EMBING RENTA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 2, Lot 15, La Meseta, Island Park, Paliparan, Dasmarias City, Cavite and Office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 2, Lot 15, La Meseta, Island Park, Paliparan, Dasmarias City, Cavite and Office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Block 51, Lot 3, Phase 2, Windward Hills Subdivision, Burol I, Dasmarias City, Cavite, and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of 6 Mabini Barihan, Malolos City, Bulacan, and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of Middle Quarry Subdivision (c/o Office of the Punong Barangay of Middle Quarry Barangay), Baguio City and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, a resident of 14 Karla Ville Subdivision, Wawa II, Rosario, Cavite and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. DETACa Respondent MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, of legal age, Filipino citizen, a resident of Block 26, Lot 9, Phase I, Windward Hills, Subdivision, Burol I, Dasmarias City, and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, of legal age, Filipino citizen, a resident of 245 Villa Del Rio I Subdivision, Alcazar, Cebu City, and with office address at Unit 12, 2nd Floor Heritage Building, Mangubat Avenue Zone IV (Poblacion) Dasmarias City, Cavite. Respondent ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Horizon Players Club, Hann Casino, Ma Roxas Highway corner CM Recto, Clark Freeport, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Respondent HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Horizon Players Club, Hann Casino, Ma Roxas Highway corner CM Recto, Clark Freeport, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Respondent RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to JENNIFER DELOS SANTOS, and with office address at Casa Infini, Ground Floor, Megatower Residences, Sandico Street, Salud Mitra Barangay, Baguio City. Respondent JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, married to RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, and with office address at Casa Infini, Ground Floor, Megatower Residences, Sandico Street, Salud Mitra Barangay, Baguio City. Respondent RHODA ANDRADA CASUGA, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Horizon Players Club, Hann Casino, Ma Roxas Highway corner CM Recto, Clark Freeport, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Respondent MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at Horizon Players Club, Hann Casino, Ma Roxas Highway corner CM Recto, Clark Freeport, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Respondent ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK of legal age, Filipino citizen, and a resident of 40 Gabriela Street, Camdas Subdivision, Baguio City. Respondent DEN ABAD, of legal age, Filipino citizen, and with office address at LA Cusina Den, 55 Legarda Road, Baguio City. RELEVANT FACTS The filing of the Motion was prompted by an Affidavit-Complaint 3 filed with the EIPD by Mhay Ann Carriza De Felipe and Kym Lorraine Tabifranca (the "Complainants"), who alleged that Respondents are soliciting investments from the public to finance its so-called Casino Junket Operations, as well as similar or related casino financing activities using different business conduits, namely, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE (PNEL), HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB (HPC), and TEAM Z. 4 The Complainants alleged that Respondents contacted and offered them an investment opportunity to fund a casino junket operation which will yield a 10% monthly pay-out, duly supported by post-dated checks and notarized contracts of loan. 5 On the basis thereof, as well as on Mr. Pantollana's representation that he has a junket license from PAGCOR, and that PNEL has a primary and secondary license from the SEC, Complainant De Felipe initially invested PhP3,000,000.00 which resulted in the execution of a Contract of Loan, and the issuance of a post-dated check in her favor. Complainants thereafter made additional investments in the aggregate amount of PhP12,543,000 which were similarly covered by Contracts of Loan and post-dated checks. 6 Complainants admitted having received pay-outs. However, by mid-2020, the Respondents allegedly stopped giving them the guaranteed pay-outs. When they confronted the Respondents of their outstanding obligation, and threatened to report the matter to the concerned casinos, the latter eventually admitted that they were running a Ponzi scheme where the investments of new investors are used to pay off the earlier/existing investors. 7 Complainants alleged that due to the misrepresentation of the Respondents, they invested a total amount of around PhP92 Million. The complainants alleged that their lawyer eventually found out that HPC and PNEL are not registered with DTI, SEC, and PAGCOR. 8 HEITAD Moreover, the EIPD discovered in the course of its investigation that Respondents are using a scheme of making it appear that they are engaged in a legitimate casino junket operation, carrying out casino financing activities which require funding from the public to carry out the same and promises investors a guaranteed lucrative return ranging from 60% to 111% per annum. 9 Respondents represent to the public that the investments received will be used to finance their business operation consisting of the provision of luxury travel, accommodation, and related services designed to bring in high-roller casino players. This generates for them considerable commissions given by the casinos, which is then used to pay the guaranteed returns on the investments of member-investors. 10 In compliance with the directive made by the EIPD during the clarificatory conference, the Complainants submitted on 24 November 2022 the contracts of loan which they entered into with Respondent Mr. Pantollana, and a list of his investors. Based on such submissions, it appears that there were about eighty-five (85) contracts of loan that were executed by Respondent Mr. Pantollana with around sixty-five (65) investors, involving/covering an aggregate amount of about PhP114,000,000.00. Acting on the information that a number of the complainants have already filed criminal cases with the appropriate Regional Trial Courts (RTC), the EIPD was able to get confirmation from the RTC-La Trinidad, Benguet that the Contracts of Loans which were submitted are certified copies of the photocopy on file. In support of its allegation that Respondents are engaged in the unauthorized sale/offer of unregistered securities, the EIPD submitted the Certifications issued by the Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD), the Markets and Securities Regulation Department (MSRD), and the Corporate Governance and Finance Department (CGFD) which showed that PNEL and HPC are not registered with the Commission as a corporation, partnership, or one person corporation (OPC), and have not been issued a secondary license as a Lending Company, Broker and/or Dealer of Securities, Dealer in Government Securities, Investment Adviser of an Investment Company, Investment House and Transfer Agent. Neither have they registered the securities that they are selling/offering pursuant to Sections 8 and 12 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), nor secured Permit to Sell Securities. The CRMD and MSRD further certified that the group of Pantollana (namely Hector Aldwin Liao Pantollana, Zeus Liao Pantollana, Reymond "Monski" Lacsamana Galang, Quarry Quieng and Erwin "Weng" L. Bangalan) have not been issued Certificates of Registration or Licenses as capital market professionals such as Associated Person, Compliance Officer, Salesman, and/or Certified Investment Solicitor of a Broker Dealer in Securities, Investment House, Underwriter of Securities, Investment Company Adviser, and/or Mutual Fund Distributor and they have no pending applications with the Commission for said Certificate of Registration or License. aDSIHc ISSUE Whether the allegations in the Petition as substantiated by the evidence presented by the EIPD warrant the issuance of a CDO. RULING The Commission finds merit in the Petition and hereby grants the same. The EIPD was able to establish by substantial evidence that Respondents are offering and/or selling unregistered securities to the public in the form of "evidences of indebtedness" without the requisite license from the Commission. Section 3.1 of the Securities Regulation Code (SRC), defines "securities" as follows: Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. 3.1. "Securities" are shares, participation or interest in a corporation or in a commercial enterprise or profit-making venture and evidenced by a certificate, contract, instrument, whether written or electronic in character. It includes: "xxx xxx xxx i. Shares of stocks, bonds, debentures, notes, evidences of indebtedness , asset-backed securities; xxx xxx xxx." (Emphasis supplied) The SRC has adopted a broad definition of securities with the intent of covering practically all forms and varieties thereof which are known or considered, or ought to be known or considered, to be such in the commercial/financial world. Thus, in the case of Gabionza vs. Court of Appeals 11 (the "Gabionza Case"), the Supreme Court ruled that the term "securities" embodies a flexible rather than static principle, one that is capable of adaptation to meet the countless and variable schemes devised by those who seek to use the money of others on the promise of profits. This Commission has thus consistently held that all shares, participation, or interests in a corporation or in a commercial enterprise or profit-making venture and evidence by a certificate, contract, or instrument, whether written or electronic in character within the Philippines are securities or presumed to be securities . In particular, a certificate or evidences of indebtedness is a written representation of debt securities or obligations of corporations such as long-term commercial and short-term commercial papers. 12 A certificate of indebtedness pertains to certificates for the creation and maintenance of a permanent improvement revolving fund, similar to a "bond." Being equivalent to a bond, it is properly understood as an acknowledgment of an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money. It is usually used for the purpose of long-term loans. 13 ATICcS In the Gabionza Case, the Supreme Court ruled that the checks and loan documents that were issued are evidences of indebtedness because they were issued in lieu of securities which the SRC requires to be registered with the Commission, thus: "In the instant case, the checks were issued by ASB in lieu of the securities enumerated under the Revised Securities Act in a clever attempt, or so they thought, to take the case out of the purview of the law, which requires prior license to sell or deal in securities and registration thereof. The scheme was designed to circumvent the law. Checks constitute mere substitutes for cash if so issued in payment of obligations in the ordinary course of business transactions. But when they are issued in exchange for a big number of individual non-personalized loans solicited from the public , numbering about 700 in this case, the checks cease to be such. In such a circumstance, the checks assume the character of evidences of indebtedness . This is especially so where the individual loans were not evidenced by appropriate debt instruments, such as promissory notes, loan agreements, etc., as in this case. Purportedly, the postdated checks themselves serve as the evidences of the indebtedness . A different rule would open the floodgates for a similar scheme, whereby companies without prior license or authority from the SEC. This cannot be countenanced." (Emphasis supplied) In the instant case, Respondents were able to obtain, and are continuously obtaining, funds from the investing public who are enticed to actually invest their hard-earned money on the strength of the promise made by Respondents of a guaranteed high returns, using for this purpose the social media platforms. Moreover, the evidence also shows that Respondents use loan documents and negotiable instruments to provide a semblance of legitimacy to their unauthorized operation as well as the unregistered securities subject thereof. 14 Consequently, Respondents were actually able to utilize and get away with more or less PhP114,000,000.00 worth of investors, money to further their unauthorized investment scheme. ETHIDa The Commission finds and so holds that the contracts of loan and the post-dated checks are clearly securities in the form of "evidences of indebtedness" contemplated under the SRC, inasmuch as they were executed and issued by Respondents in exchange for a considerably big number of individual non-personalized loans obtained or solicited from the public. This scheme effectively transformed the nature and characteristic of the checks from a simple negotiable instrument to a security in the form of evidence of indebtedness which, under the SRC, requires prior registration from the Commission before the same can be sold or offered to the public. Section 8.1 of the SRC categorically provides that securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the Philippines, if the same is not registered with the Commission in the form of an approved Registration Statement and a Permit to Offer/Sell issued in favor of the applicant, to wit: "SEC. 8. Requirement of Registration of Securities . 8.1. Securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the Philippines, without a registration statement duly filed with and approved by the Commission. Prior to such sale, information on the securities, in such form and with such substance as the Commission may prescribe, shall be made available to each prospective purchaser." (Emphasis supplied) In the case of Herbosa vs. CJH Development Corporation , 15 the Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of the provision of the SRC requiring the registration of securities is to afford public protection from investing in worthless securities. In the instant case, the Commission particularly notes the admission that Respondents made to the Complainants relating to the real nature of their investment scheme, i.e. , a ponzi scheme. This is an implied admission that the checks and loan documents that they were issuing to the public in exchange for cash are unregistered securities; a fact that was affirmed by the Certifications issued by the CRMD, MSRD, and CGDF which attested to the reality that Respondents have no license to deal in securities, and have not registered the securities that they are selling/offering to the public. Respondents are therefore clearly in a state of continued violation of the SRC. This warrants the issuance of a CDO. TIADCc Moreover, the act of the Respondents, in publicly offering the unregistered securities through social media platforms as well as through presentations made in VIP rooms of casinos and golf tournaments, constitutes a public offering of securities as defined in Rule 3.1.17 of the 2015 Implementing Rules and Regulations of the SRC (2015 SRC Rules), thus: "Public offering is any offering of securities to the public or to anyone, whether solicited or unsolicited . Any solicitation or presentation of securities for sale through any of the following modes shall be presumed to be a public offering: 3.1.17.2. Presentation in any public or commercial place ; xxx xxx xxx." (Emphasis supplied) Considering that Respondents have not been issued a license to offer securities, their act of actually offering securities in the form of evidences of indebtedness constitutes a clear violation of the afore-quoted provision of the Rules. Relative to the prayer of the EIPD for issuance of a CDO, Section 64.1 of the SRC provides that the Commission may issue a CDO without the necessity of conducting a hearing if, to its mind, the act or practice will operate as a fraud on investors or is otherwise likely to cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public, thus: "Section 64. Cease and Desist Order. 64.1. The Commission , after proper investigation or verification, motu proprio or upon verified complaint by any aggrieved party, may issue a cease and desist order without the necessity of a prior hearing if in its judgment the act or practice, unless restrained, will operate as a fraud on investors or is otherwise likely to cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public ." (Emphasis supplied) Under the afore-quoted provision, there are two (2) essential requisites that must be complied with for a valid issuance of a CDO: 1) There must be a conduct of a proper investigation or verification; and 2) There is a finding that the act or practice, unless restrained, will operate as a fraud on investors or is otherwise likely to cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public. 16 In the instant case, the foregoing requisites were met. The EIPD conducted an independent investigation which resulted in the gathering and presentation of evidence that supported its Petition , i.e. , Certifications from the Commission's CRMD, MSRD, and CGFD; the Contracts of Loan which were duly certified by the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet, and the affidavits of the complainants. More importantly, this Commission is convinced that evidence on record which showed the unauthorized investment-taking activities of the Respondents warrant the issuance of a CDO because the same will operate as a fraud on investors or is likely to cause grave or irreparable injury or prejudice to the investing public, if not restrained. This finding is supported by the fact that Respondents admitted to carrying out a ponzi scheme which was affirmed by the Certifications of the CRMD, MSRD, and CGFD. AIDSTE Moreover, this Commission cannot overemphasize the fact borne by the records that the Respondents' act of selling/offering unregistered securities in the form of evidence of indebtedness constitutes fraud which should be promptly restrained for the protection of the investing public. This finds support in the case of Securities and Exchange Commission vs. CJH Development Corp . 17 where the Supreme Court categorically held that: " The law is clear on the point that a cease and desist order may be issued by the SEC motu proprio , it being unnecessary that it results from a verified complaint from an aggrieved party. A prior hearing is also not required whenever the Commission finds it appropriate to issue a cease and desist order that aims to curtail fraud or grave or irreparable injury to investors. There is good reason for this provision, as any delay in the restraint of acts that yield such results can only generate further injury to the public that the SEC is obliged to protect. " The act of selling unregistered securities would necessarily operate as a fraud on investors as it deceives the investing public by making it appear that respondents have the authority to deal with such securities . Section 8.1 of the SRC clearly states "that securities shall not be sold or offered for sale or distribution within the Philippines without a registration statement duly filed with and approved by the SEC and that prior to such sale, information on the securities, in such form and with such substance as the SEC may prescribe, shall be made available to each prospective buyer." (Emphasis supplied) WHEREFORE , premises considered, Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD , representatives, salesmen, solicitors, agents, uplines, enablers and influencers, and any and all persons claiming and acting for and in their behalf, are hereby directed to IMMEDIATELY CEASE AND DESIST from further engaging in, promoting and facilitating selling and/or offering for sale securities in the form of evidence of indebtedness and/or other activities/transactions relative thereto, until the requisite registration statements are duly filed with and approved by the Commission, and the corresponding license and/or permit to offer/sell securities are issued. SDAaTC Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD , representatives, salesmen, solicitors, agents, uplines, enablers and influencers, and any and all persons claiming and acting for and in their behalf, are likewise directed to CEASE their transactions relative to the Casino Junket Operation covered by this Cease and Desist Order . The Commission will institute the appropriate administrative and criminal action against any persons or entities found to act as solicitors, information providers, salesmen, agents, brokers, dealers, or the like for and on their behalf. Finally, the Commission hereby PROHIBITS Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD , its partners, operators, directors, officers, salesmen agents, representatives, promoters, and all persons, conduit entities and subsidiaries claiming and acting for and on its behalf from transacting any business involving the funds covered by this CDO in its depository banks, and from transferring, disposing, or conveying in any manner, all assets, properties, real or personal, including but not limited to bank deposits, of which the named persons herein may have any interest, claim or participation whatsoever, directly or indirectly, under its/their custody, to ensure the preservation of the assets for the benefit of the investors. AaCTcI The EIPD of the Commission is hereby DIRECTED to (a) serve a copy of this CDO to Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD and (b) cause the posting of this Order in the Commission's website. The EIPD is FURTHER DIRECTED to (a) initiate the appropriate criminal proceedings against Respondents HORIZON PLAYERS CLUB, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL ESPORTS LEAGUE, TEAM Z, HECTOR PANTOLLANA, ZEUS LIAO PANTOLLANA, REYMOND "MONSKI" LACSAMANA GALANG, QUARRY QUIENG, ERWIN "WENG" L. BANGALAN, KIM MEJICA, DANIEL AGBISIT, PAUL TOLENTINO MARANAN, JM ALMODIENTE, CJ QUINZON, VANESSA MENDOZA MAGBOO, GUMBA MARTINADA, RONALDO EMBING RENTA, NESHEMAH ROCK LORICO RENTA, MARICEL RAPOSON CESUMISION, AVEGAIL NAMOC CRUZ, JAMES CHRISTOPHER TAN ROJAS, JOSEPH JUNIA ZABALA, MARIA CECILIA TABANO VIZCAYANO, STEPHEN CECILIA A. DOROG, ZEN CARREON HUMILDE, HEIN CARREON HUMILDE, RAFFY PALANGDAN FLORESCA, JENNILYN GALLETES DELOS SANTOS FLORESCA, RHODA ANDRADA CASUG, MIKHAELLA DAMASCO TY, ARIEL RAMOS KATIGBAK , and DEN ABAD , and (b) submit a formal compliance report, by way of pleading, to the Commission En Banc within ten (10) days from receipt of this Cease and Desist Order . Let a copy of this Order be furnished to all relevant operating departments/offices of the Commission, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Department of Trade and Industry, the National Privacy Commission, and the Department of Information and Communications Technology for their information and appropriate action. acEHCD In accordance with the provisions of Section 64.3 of the SRC and Section 4-3 of the 2016 Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the parties subject of this CDO may file a verified motion to lift the CDO within five (5) days from receipt thereof. The Motion to Lift the CDO must be filed to the Commission En Banc through the Office of the General Counsel. FAIL NOT UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. SO ORDERED. Makati City, Philippines. (SGD.) EMILIO B. AQUINO Chairperson (SGD.) JAVEY PAUL D. FRANCISCO Commissioner (SGD.) KELVIN LESTER K. LEE Commissioner (SGD.) KARLO S. BELLO Commissioner (SGD.) MCJILL BRYANT T. FERNANDEZ Commissioner Footnotes 1. Motion for Issuance of Cease and Desist Order dated 21 February 2023. 2. SEC Office Order No. 512, series of 2013. 3. Motion (n1), Affidavit Complaint attached as Annex "A." 4. Ibid. , Paragraphs 33 and 38. 5. Affidavit-Complaint dated 3 October 2022. 6. Ibid. Pars. 20 to 25. 7. Id. Pars. 35 to 36. 8. Id. Annexes B-8 to B-11. 9. Petition, Pars. 11 and 12. 10. Ibid. 11. G.R. No. 161057, 12 September 2008. 12. Decasa, Lucia M., Securities Regulation C od e Annotated with Implementing Rules and Regulations , 2004, 1st ed., p. 7. 13. G.R. No. 93397, Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals , 3 March 1997. 14. Ibid. , Check attached as Annex "S-1." 15. G.R. No. 210316, 28 November 2016. 16. Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corporation (G.R. No. 154131, July 20, 2006). 17. G.R. No. 210316, November 28, 2016.