Constancia C. Adajar, et al. vs. New Pangasinan Review Inc., et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2854. April 11, 1986.] CONSTANCIA C. ADAJAR, ET AL ., petitioners , vs . NEW PANGASINAN REVIEW INC., ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N On August 8, 1985, a petition docketed as SEC CASE NO. 2854 and entitled Constancia C. Adajar, Salud Magsano, Teresita Adajar, Epifania Manaois, and Myrna Maramba, In Their Behalf and For all The Employees of Pangasinan Review, Inc., Petitioners, versus New Pangasinan Review, Inc., Dr. Josefina de Venecia-Fernandez, Salvacion Hernando and Union Security Force represented by Atty. Conrado Guadiz, Respondents," was filed with this Commission where Petitioners asked, among others, that respondents be enjoined from continuing business of the Pangasinan Review, Inc., and that the properties of the said corporation, which were transferred to the New Pangasinan Review, Inc., be returned to the former corporation so that proper liquidation of the properties of the Pangasinan Review, Inc., be had. dctai The hearing panel takes cognizance of the fact, however, that there is a pending petition before the Commission en banc, docketed as SEC-EB NO. 097 , where the Commission en banc passed a resolution dated December 16, 1985, creating a receivership committee with ". . . the power to review the liquidation of the corporate assets that may have been affected, and to report and make recommendations to the Commission." Likewise, the dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads as follows: "Wherefore, premises considered, we should, as we do hereby, modify Our order dated 3 May, 1985 by dissolving the Board of Liquidators created pursuant thereto, and Appointing herein, as the Receivership Committee for Pangasinan Review, Inc., the following: 1.) Dr. Josefina V. Fernandez, 2.) Mrs. Corazon G. Fernandez, and 3.) Atty. Anastacio Zamuco, Who shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Receiver in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court." While a Motion For Reconsideration has been filed by Oppositors in SEC-BED NO. 097 , it is noteworthy to state that the principal issues raised in SEC CASE NO. 2854 are the very same ones passed upon by the Commission en banc in the petition before it. We, therefore, feel that the petition's cause of action in SEC CASE NO. 2854 has become moot and academic, thus warranting its dismissal. WHEREFORE, this petition should also be, as it is hereby, DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ANTONIO M. ESTEVES Hearing Officer (SGD.) JUANITO B. ALMOSA, JR. (SGD.) EDMUNDO R. FALGUI Hearing Officer Hearing Officer