GR 172393; (October, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 172393 ; October 20, 2010
BANK OF COMMERCE, Petitioner, vs. HON. ESTELA PERLAS-BERNABE, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of the REGIONAL TRIAL OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 142; BANCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; and EXCHANGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bank of Commerce filed a petition for involuntary dissolution and receivership against Bancapital Development Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), alleging fraudulent securities dealings and asset transfers to Exchange Capital Corporation (Excap) to shield assets from creditors. The SEC constituted a Receivership Committee, which found Bancapital insolvent with no identifiable assets. The SEC Hearing Officer accepted this report, explicitly finding that Excap was not in possession of Bancapital’s assets. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the SEC En Banc challenging this order.
While this certiorari petition was pending, Republic Act No. 8799 transferred jurisdiction over such cases from the SEC to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). Consequently, the main receivership case was raffled to RTC Branch 138, while the pending certiorari petition was transferred to RTC Branch 142. Petitioner filed a motion before Branch 142 to consolidate the certiorari petition with the main receivership case in Branch 138. The RTC denied the motion, and this denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to consolidate the certiorari petition with the main receivership case.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is anchored on the finality and nature of the SEC Hearing Officer’s order which was the subject of the certiorari petition. The SEC En Banc, in its order transferring the case, had already declared that it would not act on the certiorari petition, effectively denying it due course because its oversight function over the hearing officer had become functus officio upon the transfer of jurisdiction. This order from the SEC En Banc attained finality as it was not appealed.
Therefore, when the case was transferred to the RTC, the certiorari petition had already been denied due course by the SEC En Banc. A petition for certiorari that has been denied due course and has attained finality is considered dismissed. Consolidating a dismissed petition with an active case serves no procedural purpose. The RTC’s denial of the motion to consolidate was thus a proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent delay and unnecessary complication, as there was no longer a live petition to consolidate with the main case. The Court emphasized that consolidation is not a matter of right but a tool for judicial economy, which was not warranted here.