This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-24 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| To recall, TIDCORP's Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 104141 sought to 1) nullify the pari passu sharing scheme directed by the trial court; 2) declare RBC and the other creditor banks which granted additional loans to WGC after the latter executed its Indemnity Agreement with TIDCORP guilty of violating TIDCORP's rights; and 3) grant preferential and special treatment to TIDCORP over other WGC creditors. These remedies would undoubtedly affect not merely the rights of RBC, but of all the other WGC creditors as well, as their standing or status as creditors would be somewhat downgraded, and the manner of recovery of their respective credits will be altered if TIDCORP's prayer is granted. Not to mention that some of them are in danger of being held liable on TIDCORP's accusations relative to its Indemnity Agreement with WGC. Surely, if TIDCORP's arguments are to be considered and its remedies granted, the other creditors should be given the opportunity to be heard by way of comment or opposition; they are entitled to due process. "In its most basic sense, the right to due process is simply that every man is accorded a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Its very concept contemplates freedom from arbitrariness, as what it requires is fairness or justice. It abhors all attempts to make an accusation synonymous with liability."[45] | |||||
|
2014-06-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Regarding the failure of PNB and Atty. Garay to move for a reconsideration of the assailed Order prior to the availment of a special civil action for certiorari, we agree with PNB that the filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with where the decision is a patent nullity or where there is violation of due process,[82] such as in the instant case. | |||||