Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1928 > December 1928 Decisions > G.R. No. 29755 December 14, 1928 - LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO. v. BLOCK, JOHNSTON & GREENBAUM

052 Phil 429:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 9755. December 14, 1928.]

INSOLVENCY OF THE LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO., LTD., insolvent debtor. THE LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO., LTD., Appellee, v. BLOCK, JOHNSTON & GREENBAUM, creditors-appellants.

The appellants in their own behalf.

D. G. McVean and Thos. G. Ingalls for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. VOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY; RECEIVERSHIP PROCEEDINGS. — The fundamental point raised in the present case is whether a judge presiding over one branch of a Court of First Instance had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the appellee’s insolvency, under the Insolvency Law, there being pending before the judge of another branch of the same court, a certain receivership proceeding, under section 176 of Act No. 190, to which receivership said appellee had agreed. As Act No. 190 is general in character while the Insolvency Law is a special law, the rule is that on a specific matter the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only when it may become necessary to supply deficiencies in the former. (Art. 16, Civil Code.)

2. ID.; ID. — Section 176 of Act No. 190, is not so conclusive and complete with respect to insolvency cases, as the Insolvency Law, whose proceedings are final as to the disposition of credits, which is an advantage not found in ordinary receivership proceedings. The court below, then, did not err in assuming jurisdiction of the present proceeding and in not dismissing it.

3. ID.; ID. — Since the appellee corporation was subject to the receivership proceeding, its acts were not illegal, because the appointment of a receiver does not dissolve a corporation nor bar the exercise of its corporate rights.

4. ID.; ID. — The estoppel invoked by the appellants under section 333, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be held applicable to the appellee corporation in this case. There is neither absolute inconsistency nor irreconcilable conflict between the consent given by said corporation to the appointment of a receiver and its petition to have itself declared insolvent.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J.:


On January 28, 1928, the attorneys who are now appellants, filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying for the dismissal of these insolvency proceedings, with costs against the attorney who instituted them, or against his client for contempt of the court having jurisdiction over the receivership, and for contempt of said court of Cebu for not having informed the latter of the existence of such case in which the receivership had been decreed, and that the order of January 23,1928 be vacated.

Said order of January 23,1928 was issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu ordering the suspension of payments to the applicant, the Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., Ltd., and enjoining the latter from transferring its property or any part thereof to any person, firm of corporation; and setting the 16th of February of 1928, at 10 a. m. at the office of the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Cebu as the time and place for the election of the proper assignee, and summoning the applicant’s creditors to such election.

Objection was made to said petition of the appellant attorneys by the Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., Ltd., through its attorney. And after hearing the motion the Court of First Instance of Cebu denied it by an order of March 5, 1928.

The attorneys appealing from said adverse order assign the following errors as committed by the lower court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. In holding itself with jurisdiction to proceed with this insolvency proceeding and in not dismissing it.

"2. In not holding that the insolvent corporation is precluded, from invoking the provisions of the Insolvency Law, Act No. 1956.

"3. In holding that section 52 of the Insolvency Law does not prohibit the discharge of an insolvent corporation of the type of the applicant herein, and in declaring such provisions to apply only to banking corporations and those as to which there are special provisions of law for their liquidation in case of insolvency.

"4. In holding that said court, in taking cognizance of the insolvency case is of a higher jurisdiction than any other court.

"5. In denying the motion of January 28, 1928, by its orders of March 5, 1928, and March 24, 1928."cralaw virtua1aw library

The fundamental question raised here is whether Judge Jose de la Rama, presiding over Branch II, had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the insolvency of the Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., Ltd., under the Insolvency Law, Act No. 1956, there being pending before Judge Guillermo Pablo presiding over Branch III, a certain receivership proceeding, under section 176 of Act No. 190, to which the said Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., Ltd., had agreed.

Act No. 190 or the Law of Civil Procedure is general in character, while the Insolvency Law, Act No. 1956 is a special law and the rule is that on a specific matter the special law shall prevail over the general law, which shall be resorted to only to supply deficiencies in the former. (Art. 16, Civil Code.)

Section 176 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not so conclusive and complete with respect to insolvency cases, as the provisions of the Insolvency Law, whose proceedings are final as to the disposition of the credits, which does not take place in receivership proceedings. Consequently, the court below did not err in assuming jurisdiction of the present proceeding and in not dismissing it.

With respect to the acts of the Board of Directors of the Leyte Asphalt and Mineral Oil Co., Ltd., since this corporation is subject to the receivership proceeding, we do not think them illegal because the appointment of a receiver does not dissolve the corporation, nor bar the exercise of its corporate rights. (Teal Motor Co. and Teal v. Court of First Instance of Manila, 51 Phil., 549.)

The estoppel invoked by the appellants under section 333, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be held applicable to the appellee corporation in this case. No absolute inconsistency or irreconcilable conflict exists between the consent given by said corporation to the appointment of a receiver and the application to have itself declared insolvent.

The fact that under section 52 of the Insolvency Law the appellee corporation cannot obtain its discharge, is not a bar to this insolvency proceeding pursuing its course for the reasons stated. The error, if error it be, of the trial court in holding that the prohibition contained in section 52 of this Insolvency Law against discharging a corporation is applicable only to banking corporations and those as to which there are special provisions for their liquidation in case of insolvency, is not prejudicial to the appellants in our opinion.

Whether a receivership proceeding is speedier and more economical than an insolvency proceeding is a point which we deem does not affect the fundamental solution of the question raised in this case. Furthermore, we find the insolvency proceeding in the present case more definite and hence more beneficial and hereby uphold it.

The order appealed from is hereby affirmed with the costs of this instance against the appellants. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Johnson, J., reserves his vote.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1928 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 28734 December 4, 1928 - CRESCENCIANO INGSON v. JUAN OLAYBAR

    052 Phil 395

  • December 7, 1928 - IN RE: FELIPE DEL ROSARIO

    052 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. 29530 December 8, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAOTO

    052 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 30263 December 8, 1928 - ROMAN ACERDEN v. ANTIAGO TONOLETE

    052 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 30174 December 10, 1928 - MODESTO YUMUL v. GREGORIO PALMA

    052 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 29506 December 11, 1928 - CONCEPCION PELAEZ v. EULALIA BUTAO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 29040 December 14, 1928 - BONIFACIO JULIAN v. SILVERIO APOSTOL, ET AL.

    052 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 29755 December 14, 1928 - LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO. v. BLOCK, JOHNSTON & GREENBAUM

    052 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 30173 December 14, 1928 - PEDRO SALDAÑA v. CRISPULO CONSUNJI, ET AL.

    052 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 29298 December 16, 1928 - REYNALDO LABAYEN v. TALISAY SILAY MILLING CO.

    052 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 29367 December 15, 1928 - ROBERTO SOLATORIO v. ARCADIO SOLATORIO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 30314 December 15, 1928 - PABLO C. DE LA ROSA v. HERMOGENES YONSON, ET AL.

    052 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 29230 December 18, 1928 - MACONDRAY & CO. INC. v. GO BUN PIN

    052 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 28865 December 19, 1928 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION CO. v. CAYETANO ORLANES

    052 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 28753 December 20, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO FLORES, ET AL.

    052 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. 30510 December 21, 1928 - ABENCIO TORRES v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAPIZ

    052 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 29036 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MANALO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. 29345 December 22, 1928 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. B. A. GREEN

    052 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. 29395 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN SAMBILE, ET AL.

    052 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 29460 December 22, 1928 - ALEJANDRO M. PANIS v. JACINTO YANGCO

    052 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. 29556 December 22, 1928 - PETRONA GAMBOA, ET AL. v. MODESTA GAMBOA, ET AL.

    052 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 29789 December 22, 1928 - FRANCISCO BARRIOS v. EDUARDA ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 29955 December 22, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    052 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 30225 December 22, 1928 - AMOS G. BELLIS v. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    052 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 27235 December 29, 1928 - PRIMITIVO PAGUIO v. TOMASA MANLAPID

    052 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. 28197 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN REYES

    052 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 28375 December 29, 1928 - BASILIO SANTOS CO v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    052 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 29158 December 29, 1928 - RAFAEL R. ALUNAN v. ELEUTERIA CH. VELOSO

    052 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 29161 December 29, 1928 - JAMES J. RAFFERTY v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

    052 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 29168 December 29, 1928 - ADOLFO AENLLE v. CLEMENTINA MARIA BERTRAND RHEIMS

    052 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 29204 December 29, 1928 - RUFINA ZAPANTA ET AL. v. JUAN POSADAS

    052 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 29217 December 29, 1928 - VALENTINA LANCI v. TEODORO R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    052 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 29236 December 29, 1928 - FELIPE ALKUINO LIM PANG v. UY PIAN NG SHUN, ET AL.

    052 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 29350 December 29, 1928 - UNIVERSAL PICTURE CORPORATION v. MIGUEL ROMUALDEZ, ET AL.

    052 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 29356 December 29, 1928 - CITY OF MANILA v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

    052 Phil 586

  • G.R. No. 29449 December 29, 1928 - LEODEGARIO AZARRAGA v. MARIA GAY

    052 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 29588 December 29, 1928 - STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK v. CHO SIONG

    052 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 29757 December 29, 1928 - JOSE GEMORA, ET AL. v. F. M.YAP TICO & CO.

    052 Phil 616

  • G.R. No. 29917 December 29, 1928 - JOSE M. KATIGBAK v. TAI HING CO.

    052 Phil 622

  • G.R. No. 30004 December 29, 1928 - FILOMENA MARTINEZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    052 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 30241 December 29, 1928 - GREGORIO NUVAL v. NORBERTO GURAY, ET AL.

    052 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 29640 December 22, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CALABON

    053 Phil 945

  • G.R. No. 28185 December 29, 1928 - NICANOR JACINTO v. BERNARDO & CO. ET AL.

    053 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. 28904 December 29, 1928 - CIPRIANA GARCIA v. ISABELO SANTIAGO

    053 Phil 952

  • G.R. No. 29196 December 29, 1928 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. GABINO BARRETTO P. PO E. JAP ET AL.

    053 Phil 955

  • G.R. No. 29423 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO GOROSPE

    053 Phil 960

  • G.R. No. 29531 December 29, 1928 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO FRANCISCO ET AL.,

    053 Phil 965

  • G.R. No. 29593 December 29, 1928 - PAULINA GARCIA v. ROBERTO SAÑGIL

    053 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. 29605 December 29, 1928 - ANTONIO ESPIRITU v. MANILA ELECTRIC LIGHT CO.

    053 Phil 970

  • G.R. No. 29663 December 29, 1928 - MANUEL ALEJANDRINO v. ERIBERTO REYES

    053 Phil 973