The Court of Appeals stood by its December 2017 ruling dismissing the 174 counts of insider trading case filed against businessman and former trade minister Roberto V. Ongpin in connection with the drop in shares of Philex Mining Corporation in 2009.
In a five-page resolution promulgated on July 2 but made public only on Thursday, the appeals court’s Special 13th Division, through Associate Justice Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla, denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Enforcement and Investor Protection Department of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The SEC sought a reversal of the appeals court’s Dec. 1, 2017 ruling that set aside their decision issued on July 8, 2016 that found Ongpin liable for insider trading. The former trade minister was also ordered to pay a fine of over P100 million.
The appeals court maintained that there is not enough evidence to prove that Ongpin is liable for insider trading.
As a quasi-judicial body, the SEC argued that its findings should be conclusive and binding upon the court.
It further claimed that all the elements of insider trading were established during its investigation; thus, Ongpin was properly meted out the penalty of P174 million for 174 counts of insider trading.
READ: Ongpin fined P174M for insider trading
“While it was alleged that the drop in the price of Philex shares after the information was made public was seen as an ‘unusual’ occurrence” or a ‘red flag,’ […], the OSG (Office of the Solicitor General) however failed to specifically identify what is ‘unusual’ as opposed to a usual or regular fluctuation in stock market prices,” the CA earlier said.
“We reckon that the public disclosure of the December 2, 2009 sale in favor of First Pacific simply ended all aggressive speculation, and this inevitably led to the drop in the market price of Philex shares. Yet, all these incidents cannot be taken as clear and direct indication that there was indeed insider trading,” it added.
The appeals court, in its recent ruling, agreed with Ongpin’s contention that only “findings of fact” of quasi-judicial agencies are binding upon the court as stated in Section 10, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The CA also noted that the other arguments raised by SEC in its motion are mere repetitions of their previous allegations and that were already the subject of the December 1, 2017 ruling.
“This Court is, therefore, not convinced that a modification of our ruling is warranted,” it said.
Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob concurred in the decision. /ee