ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 136167.June 9, 1999]
HOME INSURANCE & GUARANTY CORP. vs. SEC, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 9 1999.
G.R. No. 136167 (Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.)
Petitioner Home Insurance and Guaranty Corporation moves for reconsideration of the resolution, dated February 17, 1999, of the Court denying its petition for review on certiorari for its failure to submit an affidavit of service containing a statement of the place of service of the petition on the respondents. Petitioner claims that its counsel prepared the required affidavit of service but the latter's messenger inadvertently failed to attach the same to the petition. Copies of the said affidavit and the affidavit of the messenger were submitted together with the motion.
Petitioner actually filed an affidavit of service. However, the affidavit does not state the place of service as prescribed by the Court En Banc resolution of February 13, 1992, to wit:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
City/Municipality of ______________)S.S.
Province of _____________________)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
(Revised as of April 1, 1992)
I, ________________________________, as __________________________ of ____________________________with office address at _______________________________, after being duly sworn, depose and say:
That on __________________, 199__, I served a copy of the following pleading/paper:
NATURE OF PLEADING/PAPER
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
Case No. ___________________, entitled _____________________________ pursuant to Sections 3, 4, 5 and 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
By Personal Service to
_________________________���������
_________________________
By Ordinary Mail to
_________________________
_________________________
By Registered Mail to
_________________________��������������������� By depositing a copy on _____________________,
_________________________��������������������� 199__, in the post office at ___________________,
����������������������� as evidenced by Registry Receipt(s)
����������������������� No(s). __________________ hereto attached
����������� and indicated after the name(s) of the
����������������������� addressee(s), and with instructions to
����������������������� the postmaster to return the mail to the
����������������������� sender after ten (10) days if undelivered.
______________________, 1999______, __________________, Philippines.
___________________
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____day of _______________ 199__, Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me his/her Residence Certificate No. ___________________ issued at _________________on _______________, 199__.
Officer Administering the Oath
Doc. No. ______;
Book No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Series of 199__;
The aforesaid resolution requires the affidavit of service to contain a statement of the date of mailing and of the post office address if the service of the pleading to the respondents is by registered mail. These particulars complement the provision of Rule 13, �12 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which requires the affidavit of filing to state "the date and place of depositing the mail in the post office." (See 1 F.D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM 211 (6th ed., 1997)) Strict observance of this requirement is necessary, otherwise its purpose, which is to facilitate the processing of pleadings, will be defeated (Temic Telefunken Microelectronics (Phils.), Inc. v. Hon. Laguesma, et al., G.R. No. 135788, Second Division, Resolution, March 15, 1999). Moreover, the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege which may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law (Calucag v. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 405 (1997)). Attorneys are expected to keep abreast of circulars and other issuances relating to procedure, no less than of the decisions of this Court, as part of their duties and responsibilities as officers of the Court. (Teehankee, Jr. v. Hon. Madayag, G.R. No. 102717, En Banc, Minute Resolution, December 12, 1991).
In any case, the Court finds the petition for review on certiorari to be without merit. Petitioner has not shown any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals. It appears that the law firm of Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Pe�a and Nolasco was appointed rehabilitation receiver of Finasia Realty and Development Corporation (Finasia) by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As such, it was authorized to issue asset privatization certificates (APCs) in order to implement Finasia's rehabilitation and, eventually, to effect the payment of its obligation to its creditors. Acting under this authority, it entered into a memorandum of agreement with petitioner Home Insurance Guaranty Corporation for the latter to guaranty the redemption by the rehabilitation receiver of the APCs to be issued. In addition, it entered into an agreement with the Planters Development Bank for the latter to act as the trustee bank for the asset pool and the holders of the APCs (Memorandum of Agreement, Annex C, Petition, Rollo, pp. 31-36).
The APCs matured on October 23, 1992. However, upon the request of the rehabilitation receiver, the SEC extended the maturity of the APCs to February 23, 1993. The APCs matured but the rehabilitation receiver failed to redeem them. Hence, holders of the APCs demanded payment from petitioner. Petitioner required the rehabilitation receiver to execute in its favor a deed of assignment and conveyance of all the properties comprising the asset pool backing up the APCs as a condition for paying the holders. As the rehabilitation receiver failed to act on its demand, petitioner asked the SEC to compel the former to execute in its favor a deed of assignment of the properties in the asset pool. The SEC granted the petition and ordered the rehabilitation receiver to assign and convey to petitioner the properties in the asset pool, except the seventeen (17) transfer certificates of title covering Finasia's landholdings in Sucat. Contesting the exclusion of the 17 titles from the asset pool, petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the SEC denied the motion for lack of merit.
Petitioner questioned the two (2) orders of the SEC in the Court of Appeals but its petition was dismissed as was its motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari contending that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the orders of the SEC excluding the 17 titles from the asset pool. As found by the Court of Appeals, the properties of Finasia, which formed part of the asset pool, are listed in the annexes to the APC documents, and that the contested titles are excluded therefrom. These documents constitute valid contracts and, as such, are binding between the parties. Moreover, the 17 titles were turned over to the custody of the trustee bank, Planters Development Bank (PDB), for the principal purpose of providing additional security for the redemption of the issued APCs. In fact, PDB never included these 17 titles in its. periodic determination of the collateral value of the asset pool. These circumstances confirm the fact that the intention of the parties was to exclude these titles from the asset pool. As additional security, recourse to these titles are allowed only if the asset pool is exhausted. There is, however, no showing by petitioner that the asset pool is already exhausted warranting the recourse to these titles. Petitioner cannot rely on the resolution of the Project Governing Board as evidence that the parties subsequently intended to include these titles in the asset pool since there is no showing that the parties to the trust indenture agreement, namely, the rehabilitation receiver, the trustee bank, and the petitioner, gave their written consent or approval to this resolution (�8.3, Trust Indenture, Annex D, Petition, Rollo, p. 57).
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED with FINALITY.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
