10. SEC v. PICOP

SEC v. PICOP G.R. No. 164314 September 26, 2008 FACTS: In 2002, PICOP Resources, Inc. filed with SEC an application to amend its Articles of  Incorporation, extendin its corporate existence for another !0 "ears. A filin fee of Php2#0 was  paid $" PICOP howe%er SEC notified them that the correct amount of filin fee is #2& or #'! of  #( of its authori)ed capital stoc* of + $illion. PICOP souht a reduction of such amount $ut SEC upheld the same assessment as it is $ased on RA!#. PICOP then ele%ated the case to the SEC En -anc, who ustified the Commissions decision sa"in the assessed fee is $ased on the said Repu$lic Act and althouh the Schedule of Re%ised /ees do not pro%ide for a filin fee for  extensions of term, it does not limit SEC from imposin the pre%ailin fees. he amount was redu reduce ced d to + mill millio ion, n, whic which h is #( of the the auth author ori) i)ed ed capi capita tall stoc stoc*. *. PICO PICOP P sou souht ht a reconsideration of the En -anc rulin. It arued that RA 1o. !# has $een repealed $" the Corporation Code of #30 and Presidential 4ecree 025A. Section # of the Corporation Code authori)es the SEC to collect and recei%e fees as authori)ed $" law or $" rules and reulation  promulated $" the SEC. he SEC En -anc denied once more PICOPs re6uest to reconsider the earlier rulin and re%erted to the P#2 &illion assessment. It maintained that the pro%ision on the maximum imposa$le fee under the #3+ Circular has $een amended $" the #7 Circular which remo%ed the maximum imposa$le fee. /urthermore, the SEC En -anc explained that contentions that its 200# Circular was not pu$lished are erroneous. here was, in fact, due pu$lication in he &anila Standard on 8ul" #, 200#. Accordinl", the 200# Circular $ecame effecti%e on Auust #!, 200#. hus, the pu$lic was properl" apprised of the chanes in fees. ISSE: !"et"er t"e OP #$% CA #re &orre&t '$ %e&(#r'$) t"#t t"e #pp('&#b(e *'('$) *ee '+ P100,000.00, '$+te#% o* P12 m'(('o$ (#+t #++e++e% b t"e SEC E$ -#$& E/: e+. e+. In  Eastern Telecommunic Telecommunications ations Philippines, Philippines, Inc. v. International International Communication Communication Corporation,  the Court laid the uidelines in resol%in disputes concernin the interpretation $" an aenc" of its own rules and reulations, to wit9 :#;