Rather, it waits for the customer to sell. "For his defense, claims that he was induced to trade in a stock security with because the latter allowed offset settlements wherein he is not obliged to pay the purchase price. "Despite said demand and the lapse of said requested extension, failed and/or refused to pay his accountabilities to. "In a letter dated August, 1997, acknowledged receipt of demand and admitted his unpaid obligation and at the same time request for 60 days to raise funds to pay the same, which was granted by. "In a letter dated August 15, 1997, through counsel demanded that settle his obligation plus the agreed penalty charges accruing thereon equivalent to the average 90-day Treasury Bill rate plus 2% per annum (200 basis points). then referred the matter to its legal counsel for collection purposes. "After the sale of securities and application of the proceeds thereof against his account, remaining unsettled obligation to was ₱3,364,313.56. Such that thereafter sold securities to set off against his unsettled obligations. "Despite the lapse of the period within which to pay his account as well as sufficient time given by for to comply with his proposal to settle his account, the latter failed to do so. "Since April 10, 1997, actively traded his account, and as a result of such trading activities, he accumulated an outstanding obligation in favor of in the principal sum of ₱6,617,036.22 as of April 30, 1997. The parties’ business relationship was governed by the terms and conditions x x x. "Sometime in April 1997, opened a cash or regular account with for the purpose of buying and selling securities as evidenced by the Account Application Form. "Evidence adduced by the has established the fact that is engaged in business as a broker and dealer of securities of listed companies at the Philippine Stock Exchange Center. The factual antecedents were summarized by the trial court (and reproduced by the CA in its assailed Decision) in this wise: The CA denied reconsideration in its SeptemResolution. "UPON THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE THUS, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: Hence, they fall outside the purview of the pari delicto rule.īefore the Court is a Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the MaDecision 2 and the SeptemResolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. These transactions took place before both parties violated the trading law and rules. In the present case, respondent cannot escape payment of stocks validly traded by petitioner on his behalf. In particular, the laws and regulations requiring payment of traded shares within specified periods are meant to protect the economy from excessive stock market speculations, and are thus mandatory. Consequently, securities transactions are impressed with public interest, and are thus subject to public regulation. Trends in stock prices tend to herald changes in business conditions. The rise and fall of stock market indices reflect to a considerable degree the state of the economy. Stock market transactions affect the general public and the national economy. ABACUS SECURITIES CORPORATION, Petitioner,
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |