Rodolfo Salazar, et al. vs. Jaime "JIM" Fernandez, et al.

[SEC-SICD * CASE NO. 2926. August 31, 1990.] RODOLFO SALAZAR, ET AL. , petitioners , vs . JAIME "JIM" FERNANDEZ, ET AL. , respondents . D E C I S I O N This is an action for mandamus and/or prohibition, with prayer for preliminary injunction and damages. In support thereof, petitioners alleged among others, that respondents Jaime "Jim" Fernandez "Pining" Ocampo and Lucindo "Inog" Faylona composing the COMELEC set on October 27, 1985 the election for the seven (7) members of the 1986 TBAM board; that for the said election, the COMELEC set out stringent requirements that the proxy forms must be: LexLib "a. Notarized by a Notary Public. The notary's official seal must be affixed in the document. b. The signature of the principal (the person assigning the proxy) must appear in the form in ink (not photocopy). c. An ID picture must accompany the proxy form and the same must bear his/her signature in ink in case no original ID picture can be procured; d. The proxy form must only be assigned to a TBAM member". Petitioners contend that neither the TBAM articles of incorporation nor its by-laws contain any provision whatsoever regarding proxy voting. Respondents filed their answer with counterclaim and alleged as affirmative defenses, that the so-called "stringent requirements" were adopted unanimously in a meeting attended by the COMELEC, the incumbent board members and all the candidates before the elections; that the said requirements were published properly and posted in the Bulletin Board of the association weeks before the election and no objections were ever raised by any one at all; that the purpose of such additional requirement is to minimize or prevent election fraud and insure the integrity of the TBAM elections; that by virtue of the unanimous vote mentioned above, the notarial portion became vital part of the proxy, and defect therein invalidates the proxy. Several hearings were conducted and both parties presented their evidence. The records show that on January 15, 1986, an Order was issued by the then Hearing Officer Edmundo R. Falgui granting the petitioners' application for a Writ of preliminary injunction. On January 27, 1986, respondents filed a petition for Certiorari before the Commission en banc praying that the Order dated January 27, 1987 by the then Hearing Officer be reversed for lack for legal basis. It appears from the records that on January 20, 1987 the Commission en banc rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit and the case was remanded to the Securities Investigation and Clearing Department for further proceedings. During the last hearing on March 20, 1987, counsel for the respondents failed to appear despite notice. It appears from the pleadings that the term of office of the petitioners have already expired and the acts complained of have been also rendered moot and academic. The only issue to be determined is the petitioners' prayer for damages and attorney's fees. Jurisprudence is replete with rulings to the effect that the Securities and Exchange Commission has "no jurisdiction to award compensatory, moral and exemplary damages". (Augusto Padilla vs. Manila Polo Club, Inc. GA-G.R. Sp. No. 18630. February 1, 1990) Anent the award of attorney's fees, the same is essentially discretionary with the trial court. (de Santos vs. City of Manila, G.R. No. L-21677, June 29, 1972,) From the evidence adduced, we find no compelling reason to award the attorney's fees. WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, this case is now considered CLOSED. llcd SO ORDERED. (SGD.) ENRIQUE L. FLORES, JR. Hearing Officer