In re Philippine College of Hospital Administrators, Inc.

April 16, 2008 SEC EN BANC CASE NO. 09-07-0194 IN THE MATTER OF THE PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS, INC. (SEC REG. NO. 67091) , petitioner. FOR: SETTING ASIDE ORDER OF REVOCATION O R D E R Petitioner is a non-stock corporation registered with the Commission on 19 April 1976 primarily to elevate and establish a standard of competence for hospital administration as well as to develop and promote standards of education and training therefor. It has its business office address at Rm. 101, PMA Bldg., Brgy. Bagong Pag-asa, North Avenue, Quezon City. ESTCDA In the Commission's Order dated 28 December 2001 which was published in the Manila Standard on 21 January 2002, petitioner, among others, was directed to appear in a hearing and show cause why its certificate of registration should not be revoked. As petitioner failed to comply with this directive, it was deemed to have waived its right to be heard resulting in the revocation of its certificate of registration. During its meeting on 13 July 2006, the Commission En Banc issued SEC Resolution No. 328, Series of 2006 ("SEC Res. No. 328"), which reads: "RESOLVED, To ADOPT the policy that Petitions to Lift the Order of Revocation filed beyond the three-year period by corporations with revoked Certificates of Registration shall be acted upon by the CRMD based on the following grounds: That the corporation is: (a) covered by the Revocation Orders published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on April 25, 2003, June 2, 2003, July 11, 2003, August 28, 2003, October 4, 2003, February 14, 2004 and October 28, 2005 and in the Philippine Star on July 3, 2006; and (b) in actual and continuous operation of its business on the date of revocation up to the time of filing of the petition; and Such other reasons as the Commission may deem meritorious." HEAcDC On 11 January 2007, the Commission En Banc passed SEC Resolution No. 10, Series of 2007 ("SEC Res. No. 10"), which states: "RESOLVED, To ADOPT the policy that Petitions to Lift the Order of Revocation of Certificates of Registration must be filed within three years from the date of the revocation. Upon the expiration of the aforesaid period, the Order of Revocation shall become final and executory unless otherwise decided by the Commission En Banc in meritorious cases. This supersedes SEC RES. NO. 328, s. of 2006." On 12 September 2007, petitioner filed the instant petition praying for the lifting of the afore-said Order of Revocation on the ground that, "the present officers of the board are active and having their regular monthly board meetings and annual convention to carry on the purposes of the corporation. . . ." CSDTac In support of its petition, petitioner submitted the following documents as proof of its continued operation: 1. Annual Income Tax Return for the period ended December, 2006; 2. Invitation to the 31st Annual Convention and Induction Ceremonies held on 20 November 2006; and 3. Members' Directory. acIASE It has also paid in full the total amount of penalty of Thirty-Two Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php32,750.00) as assessed by the Law and Regulation Division (LRD) of the Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD) and evidenced by Official Receipt No. 0095268. The sole issue to be resolved is whether the Order of Revocation of petitioner's certificate of registration should be set aside. We answer in the negative. As adverted to above, petitioner's certificate of registration was revoked by virtue of the Commission's Order dated 28 December 2001. Indubitably, this Order is not included in the Revocation Orders enumerated in SEC Res. No. 328 such that all the conditions set forth in the said resolution have not been complied with. While SEC Res. No. 10 expressly superseded SEC Res. No. 328, the Commission En Banc did not intend to dispense with the conditions prescribed in the latter resolution. Instead, SEC Res. No. 10 superseded SEC Res. No. 328 only insofar as jurisdiction over petitions to lift Orders of Revocation filed beyond the three-year period from date of revocation is concerned. In essence, SEC Res. No. 10 merely transferred such jurisdiction from the CRMD to the Commission En Banc. EIAScH As a matter of fact, during its meeting on 13 March 2008, the Commission En Banc adopted the following resolution in order to clarify this issue and to eliminate any confusion that may arise in the interpretation of SEC Res. Nos. 328 and 10: "SEC RES. NO. 93, s. of 2008 RESOLVED, To ADOPT THE POLICY OF DISQUALIFYING CORPORATIONS NOT INCLUDED IN SEC RES. NO. 328 SERIES OF 2006 from filing petitions to lift orders of revocation beyond the three-year period." WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. EDHTAI Let a copy of this Order be furnished the Company Registration and Monitoring Department (CRMD) and the Economic Research and Information Department (ERID) of this Commission for their appropriate action. SO ORDERED. Mandaluyong City. April 16, 2008. (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