Skip to main content

In re Cemaco Realty Development Corp.

SEC En Banc Case No. 06-07-0088 (Order) • Securities and Exchange Commission • Commission En Banc • Dec 10, 2007

Full text

December 10, 2007 SEC EN BANC CASE NO. 06-07-0088 IN THE MATTER OF CEMACO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (SEC Reg. No. C199700683) , petitioner . FOR : Lifting of Order of Revocation O R D E R On 21 June 2007, Cemaco Realty Development Corporation ("petitioner", for brevity), through its President, Mr. Pedro Chao, filed with this Commission, a Petition to Lift Order of Revocation ("the petition"). The Commission issued an Order dated 29 June 2007 setting the case for clarificatory hearing on 11 July 2007 and directing the petitioner to present and/or file the original or certified copies of the following documents: (a) proof of ownership over the parcel of raw land mentioned in the petition and over any other land, if any, and tax declarations thereon; (b) latest Financial Statements; (c) Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Certificate of Registration; (d) Business Permit for the current year; and (e) Minutes of meetings held a year prior to the filing of the petition. During the 11 July 2007 clarificatory hearing, petitioner was not able to submit all the documents required. Through its Order dated 14 August 2007, the Commission granted petitioner one last opportunity to submit its (a) 2007 Business Permit and (b) either its 2006 Income Tax Return ("ITR") or Minutes of meetings held a year prior to the filing of the petition. On 31 August 2007, the Commission received petitioner's letter of 28 August 2007 which attached the latter's 2006 ITR. In the said letter, petitioner requested that it be given ninety (90) days, instead of the usual thirty (30), reckoned from its receipt of an Order setting aside its revocation, within which to submit its 2007 Business Permit. In support of this request, petitioner alleged the following: "1. (its) Cebu office under old management is of 'No Operation' and was unable to perform its duties and responsibilities for the company including the submission of the required reportorial requirements; SEHDIC 2. the new management is based in Manila and has the intention to transfer the business address from Cebu to Manila to properly operate and monitor the company's business activities; 3. transfer of business address would need preparation of documents and SEC approval; and 4. (it) would be filing (its) business permit in Manila upon receipt of the approval of the transfer of business address from SEC." Because of the above allegations, the Commission's Cebu Extension Office ("SEC-CEO") was requested to check whether petitioner's principal office, per its Articles of Incorporation and latest General Information Sheet, exists in 892 C. Padilla Street, Mambaling, Cebu City and if so, whether it is owned or just being rented by the petitioner and whether petitioner's activities are still undertaken therein. 1 Despite earnest efforts, SEC-CEO failed to locate the said principal office. As a matter of fact, it found that "there is no building in C. Padilla St., Mambaling, Cebu City bearing the number 892". 2 On 9 November 2007, the Commission received petitioner's letter of 24 October 2007, herein treated a Motion to Withdraw Petition, stating that its Board of Directors had decided to withdraw the instant petition and instead opted to file for its re-registration and requesting that it be allowed to retrieve all documents/records pertinent to the said petition. Based on records at hand, petitioner has not operated from the time of its incorporation in 10 June 1997 up to 31 December 2006 due to lack of business opportunity. 3 Its 2006 ITR also indicates that it had no operation for the covered period. WHEREFORE, considering that it would be to the best interest of CEMACO REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION to register anew, the request/motion to withdraw the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for being moot and academic. Petitioner cannot be allowed to retrieve all documents/records it submitted in support of the instant petition because they now form part of the case record. It can, however, be allowed to photocopy the same upon request and at its own expense. SAHITC SO ORDERED. Mandaluyong City, December 10, 2007. (SGD.) FE B. BARIN Chairperson (SGD.) MA. JUANITA E. CUETO Commissioner (SGD.) JESUS ENRIQUE G. MARTINEZ Commissioner (SGD.) RAUL J. PALABRICA Commissioner (SGD.) THADDEUS E. VENTURANZA Commissioner Footnotes 1. Memorandum of the Office of the General Counsel to the Cebu Extension Office dated 25 September 2007. 2. Memorandum of the Cebu Extension Office to the Office of the General Counsel dated 3 October 2007. 3. Affidavit of Non-Operation executed by petitioner and notarized by Atty. Fidel V. Esquieres.

Ask what this means for your situation

The assistant quotes the passage it relies on and links the source, so you can check every figure it gives you.