Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 174457-59 2012-12-05	EXPRESS INVESTMENTS III PRIVATE LTD. v. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Section 6(c), PD 902-A provides that upon the appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, 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.[66] The suspension of action for claims against the corporation under a rehabilitation receiver or management committee embraces all phases of the suit, be it before the trial court or any tribunal or before this Court.[67]
	GR No. 169725 2010-04-30	RICARDO V. CASTILLO v. UNIWIDE WAREHOUSE CLUB PERALTA, J.
In Finasia Investments and Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals,[16] the term "claim" has been construed to refer to debts or demands of a pecuniary nature, or the assertion to have money paid. It was referred to, inArranza v. B.F. Homes, Inc.,[17] as an action involving monetary considerations and in Philippine Airlines v. Kurangking,[18] the term was identified as the right to payment, whether or not it is reduced to judgment, liquidated or unliquidated, fixed or contingent, matured or unmatured, disputed or undisputed, legal or equitable, and secured or unsecured.[19] Furthermore, the actions that were suspended cover all claims against a distressed corporation whether for damages founded on a breach of contract of carriage, labor cases, collection suits or any other claims of a pecuniary nature.[20] More importantly, the new rules on corporate rehabilitation, as well as the interim rules, provide an all-encompassing definition of the term and, thus, include all claims or demands of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property, whether for money or otherwise.[21] There is no doubt that petitioner's claim in this case, arising as it does from his alleged illegal dismissal, is a claim covered by the suspension order issued by the SEC, as it is one for pecuniary consideration.
	GR No. 178768 2009-11-25	PACIFIC WIDE REALTY v. PUERTO AZUL LAND NACHURA, J.
The governing law concerning rehabilitation and suspension of actions for claims against corporations is Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, as amended (P.D. No. 902-A). Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A mandates that, upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board, or body, all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board, or body shall be suspended. Stated differently, 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.[42]
	GR No. 167768 2009-04-17	MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY NACHURA, J.
The suspension of action for claims against a corporation under rehabilitation receiver or management committee embraces all phases of the suit, be it before the trial court or any tribunal or before this Court. Otherwise stated, what are automatically stayed or suspended are the proceedings of an action or suit and not just the payment of claims. Furthermore, the actions that are suspended cover all claims against a distressed corporation whether for damages founded on a breach of contract of carriage, labor cases, collection suits or any other claims of a pecuniary nature.[42]
	GR No. 164267 2007-11-23	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. HEIRS OF BERNARDIN J. ZAMORA QUISUMBING, J.
Incidentally, the Court's Third Division rendered a Resolution dated February 6, 2007 in G.R. No. 166996 entitled Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Bernardin J. Zamora. The petition stemmed from the same set of facts between substantially the same parties and raised the following issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring respondent's dismissal illegal and the NLRC decision final and executory; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering petitioner to pay respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to respondent's incarceration; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering respondent to present his monetary claim to petitioner's rehabilitation receiver.[12]
	GR NO. 164856 2007-08-29	JUANITO A. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES QUISUMBING, J.
More importantly, the suspension of all actions for claims against the corporation embraces all phases of the suit, be it before the trial court or any tribunal or before this Court.[17] No other action may be taken, including the rendition of judgment during the state of suspension. It must be stressed that what are automatically stayed or suspended are the proceedings of a suit and not just the payment of claims during the execution stage after the case had become final and executory.[18]