This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence is settled that the suspension of proceedings referred to in the law uniformly applies to "all actions for claims" filed against a corporation, partnership or association under management or receivership, without distinction, except only those expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business.[22] In the oft-cited case of Rubberworld (Phils.) Inc. v. NLRC,[23] the Court noted that aside from the given exception, the law is clear and makes no distinction as to the claims that are suspended once a management committee is created or a rehabilitation receiver is appointed. Since the law makes no distinction or exemptions, neither should this Court. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos.[24] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Zamora[25] declares that the automatic suspension of an action for claims against a corporation under a rehabilitation receiver or management committee embraces all phases of the suit, that is, the entire proceedings of an action or suit and not just the payment of claims. | |||||
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held in Rubberworld (Phils.) Inc. v. NLRC,[36] in Sobrejuanite v. ASB Development Corporation,[37] and in Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,[38] that the suspension of proceedings referred to in Section 6 (c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, which pertinently provides - | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[8] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) | |||||