Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

METROPOLITAN BANK v. ASB HOLDINGS

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180036 2013-01-16	SITUS DEV. CORPORATION v. ASIATRUST BANK SERENO, J.
That the properties belonging to petitioner corporations' majority stockholders may be included in the rehabilitation plan pursuant to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. ASB Holdings, Inc. [3] (the Metrobank Case);
	GR No. 172192 2008-12-23	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. ASB HOLDINGS REYES, R.T., J.
In Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. ASB Holdings, Inc.,[5] the Court was confronted with triple questions: The rehabilitation plan compels petitioner bank to accept, through a dacion en pago arrangement, the mortgaged properties based on ASB Group of Companies' transfer values and to release part of the collateral. This forced transfer of properties and diminution of the bank's right to enforce its lien on the mortgaged properties violate its constitutional right against impairment of contracts and right to due process.
	GR No. 172895 2008-07-30	UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ASB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
More importantly, on 27 February 2007, this Court promulgated its Decision in Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company v. ASB Holdings, Inc. [23] Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) was one of the creditor-mortgagee banks of the ASBDC. MBTC challenged the validity of the Petition for Rehabilitation of the ASB Group of Companies approved by the SEC Hearing Panel on 26 April 2001. We already upheld in said case the validity of the Rehabilitation Plan. We also denied with finality on 6 June 2007 the Motion for Reconsideration of MBTC. The Rehabilitation Plan, like the 4 May 2000 Suspension Order, resulted from the very same proceedings held herein by the SEC Hearing Panel pursuant to the Petition for Rehabilitation filed by the ASB Group of Companies. As we have already settled the validity of the Rehabilitation Plan, the jurisdictional issues on the Petition for Rehabilitation should also be considered laid to rest. Intrinsic to this Court's affirmation of the validity of the Rehabilitation Plan is its recognition of the jurisdiction acquired by the SEC Hearing Panel over the Petition for Rehabilitation of the ASB Group of Companies.
	GR No. 164641 2007-12-20	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. SECURITIES TINGA, J,
The very same issues confronted the Court in the case of Metropolitan Bank &Trust Company v. ASB Holdings, et al.[31] In this case, Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company (MBTC) refused to enter into a dacion en pago arrangement contained in ASB's proposed Rehabilitation Plan.[32] MBTC argued, among others, that the forced transfer of properties and the diminution of its right to enforce its lien on the mortgaged properties violate its constitutional right against impairment of contracts and right to due process. The Court ruled that there is no impairment of contracts because the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan and the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver merely suspends the action for claims against the ASB Group, and MBTC may still enforce its preference when the assets of the ASB Group will be liquidated. But if the rehabilitation is found to be no longer feasible, then the claims against the distressed corporation would have to be settled eventually and the secured creditors shall enjoy preference over the unsecured ones. Moreover, the Court stated that there is no compulsion to enter into a dacion en pago agreement, nor to waive the interests, penalties and related charges, since these are merely proposals to creditors such as MBTC, such that in the event the secured creditors refuse the dacion, the Rehabilitation Plan proposes to settle the obligations to secured creditors with mortgaged properties at selling prices.