Dotcom firm seeks speedy decision on case

Website marketing firm Prosperity.com is seeking the speedy resolution of the case lodged against it by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as it vehemently denied being engaged in the illegal pyramid scheme.

Prosperity legal counsel Ernesto Tabao filed last Tuesday before the Court of Appeals a motion for the early resolution of the case, which stemmed from a cease-and-desist order (CDO) issued by the SEC against Prosperity last Jan. 26, 2001.

He said if the case is not resolved in the soonest possible time, "a condition may arise when this Honorable Court may grant a favorable order to herein petitioner (Prosperity) but the same can no longer be enforced due to the premature actions of herein respondent (SEC) rendering such order of this court inutile."

After the CDO was issued, Prosperity secured from the CA’s 10th Division a 60-day temporary restraining order (TRO) against the SEC on Feb 14. But a month after, or on March 13, the same court dismissed Prosperity’s petition for the CA to take over the case and withdraw it from the SEC, and even warned Prosperity against forum shopping.

Prosperity’s legal counsel, however, filed a motion for reconsideration on the dismissal of the petition and asked the CA to immediately rule on this issue since the SEC has continuously enforced the CDO despite the court’s existing TRO.

A ranking SEC official said while initially, a TRO was issued by the CA to enjoin the implementation of the CDO against Prosperity.com, "the said Appelate Court has recently dismissed the very petition for certiorari where such provisional relief was sought for."

But Tabao said such active enforcement of the questioned CDO has been expressed and made evident by numerous acts and pronouncements by the SEC. These acts, he claimed, include the request for police assistance in implementing the CDO and "causing the publication of its action relative to such PNP assistance with the evident objective of warding off prospective business transactions against Prosperity."

He also cited a SEC order dated April 4, 2001, declaring as permanent the same CDO that was earlier issued, even as the CA’s TRO remains effective due to the "non-finality of a subsequent order dismissing the petition on a mere technical ground." – Conrado Diaz Jr.