Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BF HOMES v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169343 2015-08-05	SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES v. BF HOMES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Under Section 6(d) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, otherwise known as the SEC Reorganization Act, the management committee or rehabilitation receiver is empowered to take custody and control of all existing assets and properties of such corporations under management; to evaluate the existing assets and liabilities, earnings and operations of such corporations; to determine the best way to salvage and protect the interest of investors and creditors; to study, review and evaluate the feasibility of continuing operations, and restructure and rehabilitate such entities if determined to be feasible by the SEC.[58] The acts of the receiver, being an appointed officer of the SEC,[59] enjoy the presumption of regularity.[60]
	GR No. 173846 2011-02-02	JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO v. RTC PERALTA, J.
In Finasia Investments and Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[22] the term "claim" has been construed to refer to debts or demands of a pecuniary nature, or the assertion to have money paid. The purpose for suspending actions for claims against the corporation in a rehabilitation proceeding is to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extrajudicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the rescue of the debtor company.[23]
	GR No. 168522 2007-12-19	UNIWIDE HOLDINGS v. JANDECS TRANSPORTATION CO. CORONA, J.
The relevant law dealing with the suspension of payments for money claims against corporations under rehabilitation is Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902-A,[12] as amended. The term "claim" under said law refers to debts or demands of pecuniary nature.[13] It is the assertion of rights for the payment of money.[14] The raison d' être behind the suspension of claims pending rehabilitation was explained in the case of BF Homes, Inc. v. CA[15]:...the reason for suspending actions for claims against the corporation should not be difficult to discover. It is not really to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to substitute the [corporation] in any pending action against it before any court, tribunal, board or body. Obviously, the real justification is to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the "rescue" of the debtor [corporation]. To allow such other action to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation. In Philippine Air Lines [(PAL)], Incorporated v. Zamora,[16]we said that "all actions for claims against a corporation pending before any court, tribunal or board shall ipso jure be suspended in whatever stage such actions may be found upon the appointment by the SEC of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver."
	GR NO. 142399 2007-06-19	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The underlying principle behind the suspension of claims pending rehabilitation proceedings was explained in the case of BF Homes, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals.[25] This Court clarified that:In light of these powers, the reason for suspending actions for claims against the corporation should not be difficult to discover. It is not really to enable the management committee or the rehabilitation receiver to substitute the defendant in any pending action against it before any court, tribunal, board or body. Obviously, the real justification is to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company. To allow such other action to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.[26] (Emphasis supplied.) This Court's adherence to the above-stated rule has been resolute and steadfast as evidenced by its oft-repeated application in a plethora of cases.[27] If truth be told, there have been several PAL cases to which said rule have been applied to. In Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[28] PAL questioned, albeit via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, before us, the decision of the NLRC awarding separation pay to Quijano, an employee of PAL. During the pendency of the petition, however, PAL moved for the suspension of proceedings of the case by virtue of the SEC order, which appointed an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver for PAL. The employee, however, argued that the claim for separation pay may be awarded despite PAL being under a state of receivership since said claim was secured by the supersedeas bond posted by the employer. The employee maintained that the suspension of proceedings provided in Section 6(c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A refers to actions or suits for claims against corporations placed under receivership and not to Petitions for Certiorari initiated by the corporation under receivership. In a Resolution dated 4 September 2000, this Court granted PAL's motion elucidating that:
	GR No. 166996 2007-02-06	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the case of BF Homes, Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[55] speaking through Mr. Justice Isagani B. Cruz, this Court ruled therein that suspension of the action was in order; although the collection suit against the corporation was still at its initial stage in the Regional Trial Court when its Petition for Rehabilitation and for a Declaration in a State of Suspension of Payments was approved by the SEC.
	GR NO. 165675 2005-09-30	SPS. EDUARDO SOBREJUANITE AND FIDELA SOBREJUANITE v. ASB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The purpose for the suspension of the proceedings is to prevent a creditor from obtaining an advantage or preference over another and to protect and preserve the rights of party litigants as well as the interest of the investing public or creditors.[12] Such suspension is intended to give enough breathing space for the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to make the business viable again, without having to divert attention and resources to litigations in various fora.[13] The suspension would enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company. To allow such other action to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.[14]