ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
July-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 96649-50 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON V. MACOY

  • G.R. No. 109660 July 1, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO NELL

  • G.R. No. 124914 July 2, 1997 - JESUS UGADDAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123074 July 4, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO M. FERNANDEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997 - OSCAR B. LAMBINO v. AMADO A. DE VERA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1245 July 7, 1997 - BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA v. NOEL NAVARETTE

  • G.R. No. 105760 July 7, 1997 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107193 July 7, 1997 - EUGENIO TENEBRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112006 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO S. DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 114275 July 7, 1997 - IÑIGO F. CARLET v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116962 July 7, 1997 - MARIA SOCORRO CACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118940-41 & 119407 July 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MEJIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119872 July 7, 1997 - REMEDIOS NAVOA RAMOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122206 July 7, 1997 - RAFAEL ARCEGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105284 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO ZUMIL

  • G.R. No. 106099 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109814 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO MAALAT

  • G.R. No. 112797 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIDA ALEGRO

  • G.R. No. 114265 July 8, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 115307 July 8, 1997 - MANUEL LAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115703 July 8, 1997 - EPIFANIO L. CASOLITA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117501 July 8, 1997 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122308 July 8, 1997 - PURITA S. MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. SC-96-1 July 10, 1997 - DAMASO S. FLORES v. BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1236 July 11, 1997 - MADONNA MACALUA v. DOMINGO TIU, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-97-1249 July 11, 1997 - PACITA SY TORRES v. FROILAN S. CABLING

  • G.R. No. 104865 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTORIANO PONTILAR, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 113511-12 July 11, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO SINOC

  • G.R. No. 115033 July 11, 1997 - PONCIANO T. MATANGUIHAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123204 July 11, 1997 - NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1158 July 14, 1997 - EUFEMIA BERCASIO v. HERBERTO BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106153 July 14, 1997 - FLORENCIO G. BERNARDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108838 July 14, 1997 - PAGCOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116528-31 July 14, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIETO ADORA

  • G.R. No. 108492 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL BANIEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118078 July 15, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 123379 July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 115439-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 120437-41 July 16, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO ALVARIO

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1382 July 17, 1997 - REXEL M. PACURIBOT v. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR.

  • G.R. No. 105002 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIARANGAN DANSAL

  • G.R. No. 108634 July 17, 1997 - ANTONIO P. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111165 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO MERCADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113257 July 17, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY LASCOTA

  • G.R. No. 114742 July 17, 1997 - CARLITOS E. SILVA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118860 July 17, 1997 - ROLINDA B. PONO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120262 July 17, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125195 July 17, 1997 - SAMAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA BANDOLINO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1362 July 18, 1997 - DSWD, ET AL. v. ANTONIO M. BELEN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-95-1283 July 21, 1997 - DAVID C. NAVAL, ET AL. v. JOSE R. PANDAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108488 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODENCIO NARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111002 July 21, 1997 - PACIFIC MARITIME SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. NICANOR RANAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117402 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLIE L. ALVARADO

  • G.R. No. 119184 July 21, 1997 - HEIRS OF FELICIDAD CANQUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121768 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO CASTILLO, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 122250 & 122258 July 21, 1997 - EDGARDO C. NOLASCO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124347 July 21, 1997 - CMS STOCK BROKERAGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125510 July 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO LISING

  • G.R. No. 111933 July 23, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112429-30 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO P. CAYETANO

  • G.R. Nos. 118736-37 July 23, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TANG WAI LAN

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1205 July 24, 1997 - OSCAR P. DE LOS REYES v. ESTEBAN H. ERISPE, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1383 July 24, 1997 - JOSE LAGATIC v. JOSE PEÑAS, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104663 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SALVATIERRA

  • G.R. No. 105004 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAROLLANO

  • G.R. No. 107723 July 24, 1997 - EMS MANPOWER & PLACEMENT SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111211 July 24, 1997 - ABS-CBN EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL., v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113235 July 24, 1997 - VICTORINA MEDINA, ET AL. v. CITY SHERIFF, MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113366-68 July 24, 1997 - GREGORIO ISABELO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116635 July 24, 1997 - CONCHITA NOOL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116736 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118458 July 24, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICKY DELA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 120276 July 24, 1997 - SINGA SHIP MANAGEMENT PHILS., INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121075 July 24, 1997 - DELTA MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121867 July 24, 1997 - SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LAB., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997 - HUBERT WEBB, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. 95-6-55-MTC & P-96-1173 July 28, 1997 - REPORT ON AUDIT IN THE MTC OF PEÑARANDA, NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 102858 July 28, 1997 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103209 July 28, 1997 - APOLONIO BONDOC, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110823 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROCHEL TRAVERO

  • G.R. No. 112323 July 28, 1997 - HELPMATE, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113344 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO LUTO

  • G.R. No. 116668 July 28, 1997 - ERLINDA A. AGAPAY v. CARLINA V. PALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116726 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO P. DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 118822 July 28, 1997 - G.O.A.L., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119000 July 28, 1997 - ROSA UY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119649 July 28, 1997 - RICKY GALICIA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119868 July 28, 1997 - PAL, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120072 July 28, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO I. MESA

  • G.R. No. 123361 July 28, 1997 - TEOFILO CACHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126556 July 28, 1997 - NELSON C. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117742 July 29, 1997 - GEORGE M. TABERRAH v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • SBC Case No. 519 July 31, 1997 - PATRICIA FIGUEROA v. SIMEON BARRANCO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 97369 July 31, 1997 - P.I. MANPOWER PLACEMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99030 July 31, 1997 - PLDT v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106582 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO BALDERAS

  • G.R. No. 107802 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JASON NAREDO

  • G.R. No. 108399 July 31, 1997 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. ROBERT MIRASOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108619 July 31, 1997 - EPIFANIO LALICAN v. FILOMENO A. VERGARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113689 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE SANGIL, SR.

  • G.R. No. 113958 July 31, 1997 - BANANA GROWERS COLLECTIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116060 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DE LA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 116292 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY PEÑERO

  • G.R. No. 119068 July 31, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CASTRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 - CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121157 July 31, 1997 - HEIRS OF SEGUNDA MANINGDING, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123561 July 31, 1997 - DELIA R. NERVES v. CSC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124678 July 31, 1997 - DELIA BANGALISAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 123379   July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 123379. July 15, 1997.]

    BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC., Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS and PITTSBURGH TRADE CENTER, CO., INC., Respondents.

    Redentor G. Libor for Petitioner.

    Rolando B. Aquino for Private Respondents.

    SYNOPSIS


    Petitioner corporations sought the suspension of the proceeding in Civil Case No. Q-94-20347 before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which is a complaint for sum of money filed against it by the private respondent, on the ground that it had filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a petition for suspension of payments with prayer for the appointment of a management or rehabilitation on committee. It was held that a court action is suspended only upon the appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver. Since is no showing that a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver for the petitioner corporation has been appointed by the SEC, the suspension of the proceedings in the civil is not warranted.


    SYLLABUS


    1. REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS; APPOINTMENT OF A MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OR A REHABILITATION RECEIVER, GROUND; ABSENCE OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OR RECEIVER IN CASE AT BAR. — The appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver may only take place after the filing with the SEC of an appropriate petition for suspension of payments. This is clear from a reading of sub-paragraph (d) of Section 5 and sub-paragraph (d) of Section 6 of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1758. The conclusion then is inevitable that pursuant to the underscored proviso in sub-paragraph (c) of the aforementioned Section 6, taken together with sub-paragraph (d) of Section 5 and sub-paragraph (d) of Section 6, a court action is ipso jure suspended only upon the appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver. Since there is no showing at all that a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver for BAROTAC has been appointed by the SEC, suspension of the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-94-20347 before the RTC of Quezon City is not warranted.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; RULING IN RCBC v. IAC (213 SCRA 830) NOT APPLICABLE TO CASE AT BAR. — The second ground of the petition is equally unmeritorious. The Court of Appeals correctly held to be inapplicable the ruling in RCBC v. Intermediate Appellate Court. The fact pattern here, which merely involves the collection of a sum of money, is distinct from that in RCBC, where B.F. Homes, Inc., filed a Petition for Rehabilitation and for Declaration of Suspension of Payments. Thereafter, RCBC, a creditor of B. F. Homes, requested the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal to extrajudicially foreclose its real estate mortgage on certain properties of B.F. Homes. Almost six months later, the SEC actually appointed a Management Committee for B.F. Homes, which did not take place in the instant case. Moreover, as found by the trial court and which petitioner did not care to dispute, BAROTAC, the debtor, was not the named petitioner for suspension of payments and appointment of a management or rahabilitation committee.


    D E C I S I O N


    DAVIDE, JR., J.:


    In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, petitioner Barotac Sugar Mills, Inc. (hereafter BAROTAC), assails the decision of public respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37004 1 affirming the orders of 27 September 1994 2 and 16 March 1995 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 79, in Civil Case No. Q-94-20347, denying BAROTAC’s motion to suspend proceedings and motion to reconsider such denial, respectively.

    The material facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On April 26, 1994 private respondent Pittsburgh Trade Center Co., Inc., (hereafter PITTSBURGH) filed before the RTC of Quezon City a complaint for a sum of money against BAROTAC. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-94-20347, assigned to Branch 79, and later transferred to Branch 221 of said court.

    Instead of filing an answer, BAROTAC filed, on 21 June 1994, a Motion to Suspend Proceedings on the ground that a Petition for Suspension of Payments with Prayer for the Appointment of a Management or Rehabilitation Committee had been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pursuant to Presidential Decree 902-A, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1758. This motion met opposition from PITTSBURGH.

    On 27 September 1994, the court issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion based on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    [I]t appears from the Order issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission dated December 10, 1993 (Annex A, Motion) that the Petition for Suspension of Payment and Appointment of a Management or Rehabilitation Committee was filed by Arcam and Company, Inc., and not by herein defendant.

    Moreover, granting that defendant Barotac Sugar Mills, Inc., indeed filed said petition, the suspension of the proceedings before this Court would be premature at this juncture there being no showing that the Securities and Exchange Commission has already placed the defendant under receivership before a management committee appointed by said Commission pursuant to Sec. 5 of P.D. 902-A.

    The trial court then ordered petitioner to file its answer or responsive pleading within fifteen days from receipt of a copy of the order.

    On 16 March 1995, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the said order.

    BAROTAC then sought redress from respondent Court of Appeals by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. It contended as ground therefor that the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion in ruling that suspension of proceedings would be premature since no management committee had been appointed by the SEC pursuant to Sec. 5 of P.D. 902-A.

    In its decision of 28 September 1995, respondent Court of Appeals dismissed BAROTAC’s petition for lack of merit, finding:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Our reading of the law leaves no room for interpretation or doubt that it is only after the appointment of a "management committee," "rehabilitation receiver," etc., by the SEC that "all actions for claims against corporation, etc., under management or receivership pending before any court shall be suspended accordingly."cralaw virtua1aw library

    x       x       x


    At the time the Complaint in the instant case was filed with the respondent court, there was no order yet from the SEC for the appointment of a management or rehabilitation committee or that which will indicate that petitioner had been placed under management or receivership. It is to be stressed that the prayer for the appointment of a management or rehabilitation committee was set for hearing by the SEC on January 7, 1994, while the motion to suspend proceedings before the respondent court was filed on June 21, 1994.

    Considering the length of time that had elapsed from the time the prayer for appointment of a management rehabilitation committee was set for hearing up to the time petitioner filed its motion to suspend said proceedings, petitioner has not shown that the SEC had required the appointment of the said committee, or that the petitioner was placed under management or rehabilitation. It is apparent that the petition for the appointment of a management or rehabilitation committee for petitioner was not granted by the SEC. 4

    It also declared inapplicable the ruling in RCBC v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 5 thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    While the issue in the cited case is, as bluntly pointed out by the petitioner, whether the property of a debtor mortgaged to a preferred creditor, could still be foreclosed once a petition for rehabilitation is filed by said debtor, the issue in the instant case is whether or not the mere filing of a petition to suspend payments with the SEC ipso facto suspends the action for collection of a sum of money filed before the court by a creditor of a distressed corporation. 6

    On 9 January 1996, respondent Court of Appeals denied BAROTAC’s motion for reconsideration of the decision. 7

    Hence, this petition for review premised on the ground that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    A. . . . THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC) HAS NOT ACQUIRED ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE PETITION TO SUSPEND PAYMENTS TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT.

    B. . . . THE RCBC VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (213 SCRA 830) [DECISION] IS NOT APPLICABLE [TO THE] INSTANT CASE.

    In its comment on the petition, private respondent contends that the first issue should not be whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the petition for suspension of payments, but whether the mere filing with the SEC of such petition suspends the proceedings in the RTC. There is no dispute that the SEC has jurisdiction over the petition; but since the petition failed to show that the SEC has appointed a management committee or rehabilitation receiver, the proceedings in the lower court should not be suspended. Private respondent also submits that RCBC v. Intermediate Appellate Court has been misquoted and is not applicable to the instant case.

    We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective memoranda, which they submitted in due time.

    The first assigned error is without basis. The Court of Appeals did not rule that the SEC had not acquired original and exclusive jurisdiction over BAROTAC’s petition to suspend payments. By citing Sections 5 and 6 of P.D. No. 902-A, 8 as amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1758, the Court of Appeals did, in fact, recognize SEC’s jurisdiction over such petition. The Court of Appeals’ ruling, i.e., that it is only after the appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver by the SEC that an action against a corporation pending before any court will be suspended, is fully supported by sub-paragraph (c) of Section 6 of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended. Said Section pertinently reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 6. In order to effectively exercise such jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the following powers:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (c) To appoint one or more receivers of the property, real and personal, which is the subject of the action pending before the Commission in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court in such other cases whenever necessary in order to preserve the rights of the parties-litigants and/or protect the interest of the investing public and creditors. Provided, however, that the Commission may, in appropriate cases, appoint a Rehabilitation Receiver . . . who shall have, in addition to the powers of a regular receiver under the provisions of the Rules of Court, such functions and powers as are provided for in the succeeding paragraph (d) hereof: . . . Provided, finally, that upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, pursuant to this Decree, all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly. (Emphasis supplied)

    The appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver may only take place after the filing with the SEC of an appropriate petition for suspension of payments. This is clear from a reading of sub-paragraph (d) of Section 5 and sub-paragraph (d) of Section 6 of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1653 and 1758. These paragraphs provide as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    SEC. 5. In addition to the regulatory and adjudicative functions of the Securities and Exchange Commission over corporations, partnerships and other forms of associations registered with it as expressly granted under existing laws and decrees, it shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    d) Petitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership or association possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee created pursuant to this Decree.

    x       x       x


    SEC. 6.

    x       x       x


    d) To create and appoint a management committee, board, or body upon petition or motu proprio to undertake the management of corporations, partnerships or other associations . . . in appropriate cases where there is imminent danger of dissipation, loss, wastage or destruction of assets or other properties or paralization of business operations of such corporations or entities which may be prejudicial to the interest of minority stockholders, parties-litigants or the general public. . . .

    The conclusion then is inevitable that pursuant to the underscored proviso in sub-paragraph (c) of the aforementioned Section 6, taken together with sub-paragraph (d) of Section 5 and sub-paragraph (d) of Section 6, a court action is ipso jure suspended only upon the appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver. Since there is no showing at all that a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver for BAROTAC has been appointed by the SEC, suspension of the proceedings in Civil Case No. Q-94-20347 before the RTC of Quezon City is not warranted.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

    The second ground of the petition is equally unmeritorious. The Court of Appeals correctly held to be inapplicable the ruling in RCBC v. Intermediate Appellate Court 9 . The fact pattern here, which merely involves the collection of a sum of money, is distinct from that in RCBC, where B.F. Homes, Inc., filed a Petition for Rehabilitation and for Declaration of Suspension of Payments. Thereafter, RCBC, a creditor of B.F. Homes, requested the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal to extrajudicially foreclose its real estate mortgage on certain properties of B.F. Homes. Almost six months later, the SEC actually appointed a Management Committee for B.F. Homes, which did not take place in the instant case. Moreover, as found by the trial court and which petitioner did not care to dispute, BAROTAC, the debtor, was not the named petitioner for suspension of payments and appointment of a management or rehabilitation committee.

    IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby dismissed and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 37004, and the orders dated 27 September 1994 and 16 March 1995 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79, in Civil Case No. Q-94-20347 are hereby affirmed.

    Double costs against petitioner.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, 24-33. Per Francisco, C., J., Verzola, E., and Agcaoili, O., JJ., concurring.

    2. Annex "C" of Petition; Rollo, 36. Per Judge Godofredo L. Legaspi.

    3. Annex "D" of Petition; id., 37.

    4. Rollo, 31-32.

    5. 213 SCRA 830 [1992].

    6. Rollo, 32.

    7. Id., 35.

    8. Entitled Reorganization of the Securities and Exchange Commission with Additional Powers and Placing the Said Agency Under the Administrative Supervision of the Office of the President.

    9. See note 5.

    G.R. No. 123379   July 15, 1997 - BAROTAC SUGAR MILLS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED