Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PACIFIC WIDE REALTY v. PUERTO AZUL LAND

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184000 2014-09-17	PUERTO AZUL LAND v. PACIFIC WIDE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
The Court resolved both cases in a Decision[30] dated November 25, 2009, ruling: (a) in G.R. No. 180893, that there was nothing unreasonable or onerous in PALI's Revised Rehabilitation Plan nor was there a violation of the non-impairment clause, in effect upholding the RTC's approval of PALI's rehabilitation;[31] and (b) in G.R. No. 178768, that the RTC committed no reversible error when it removed TCT No. 133164 from the coverage of the Stay Order since the Interim Rules only covers the suspension of the enforcement of all claims against the debtor, its guarantors, and sureties not solidarily liable with the mortgagor, and is silent on the enforcement of claims against accommodation mortgagors.[32]
	GR No. 172302 2014-02-18	PRYCE CORPORATION v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION LEONEN, J.
In Pacific Wide Realty and Development Corporation v. Puerto Azul Land, Inc.[79] which similarly involved corporate rehabilitation, this court found no merit in Pacific Wide's invocation of the non-impairment clause, explaining as follows:We also find no merit in PWRDC's contention that there is a violation of the impairment clause. Section 10, Article III of the Constitution mandates that no law impairing the obligations of contract shall be passed. This case does not involve a law or an executive issuance declaring the modification of the contract among debtor PALI, its creditors and its accommodation mortgagors. Thus, the non-impairment clause may not be invoked. Furthermore, as held in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. even assuming that the same may be invoked, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the State. Property rights and contractual rights are not absolute. The constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of obligations is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State for the common good of the general public.
	GR No. 180036 2013-01-16	SITUS DEV. CORPORATION v. ASIATRUST BANK SERENO, J.
At the time of the issuance of the Stay Order, the rules in force were the 2000 Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (the "Interim Rules"). Under those rules, one of the effects of a Stay Order is the stay of the "enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against the debtor, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor."[7] Nowhere in the Interim Rules is the rehabilitation court authorized to suspend foreclosure proceedings against properties of third-party mortgagors. In fact, we have expressly ruled in Pacific Wide Realty and Development Corp. v. Puerto Azul Land, Inc.[8] that the issuance of a Stay Order cannot suspend the foreclosure of accommodation mortgages. Whether or not the properties subject of the third-party mortgage are used by the debtor corporation or are necessary for its operation is of no moment, as the Interim Rules do not make a distinction. To repeat, when the Stay Order was issued, the rehabilitation court was only empowered to suspend claims against the debtor, its guarantors, and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor. Thus, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the rehabilitation court to suspend foreclosure proceedings against properties of third-party mortgagors.
	GR No. 187316 2012-07-16	WONDER BOOK CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS REYES, J.
Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency. The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is to enable the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings. The rehabilitation of a financially distressed corporation benefits its employees, creditors, stockholders and, in a larger sense, the general public.[33]
	GR No. 193872 2011-10-19	SIOCHI FISHERY ENTERPRISES v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CARPIO, J.
The rehabilitation plan is an indispensable requirement in corporate rehabilitation proceedings.[19] Section 5 of the Rules enumerates the essential requisites of a rehabilitation plan: The rehabilitation plan shall include (a) the desired business targets or goals and the duration and coverage of the rehabilitation; (b) the terms and conditions of such rehabilitation which shall include the manner of its implementation, giving due regard to the interests of secured creditors; (c) the material financial commitments to support the rehabilitation plan; (d) the means for the execution of the rehabilitation plan, which may include conversion of the debts or any portion thereof to equity, restructuring of the debts, dacion en pago, or sale of assets or of the controlling interest; (e) a liquidation analysis that estimates the proportion of the claims that the creditors and shareholders would receive if the debtor's properties were liquidated; and (f) such other relevant information to enable a reasonable investor to make an informed decision on the feasibility of the rehabilitation plan. (Emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 179558 2011-06-01	ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. FIRST AIKKA DEVELOPMENT NACHURA, J.
The determination of the true and correct amount due petitioner is important in assessing whether FADI may be successfully rehabilitated. It is thus necessary that petitioner be given the opportunity to be heard by the rehabilitation court. The court should admit petitioner's comment on or opposition to FADI's petition for rehabilitation and allow petitioner to participate in the rehabilitation proceedings to determine if indeed FADI could maintain its corporate existence. A remand of the case to the rehabilitation court is, therefore, imperative. To be sure, the successful rehabilitation of a distressed corporation will benefit its debtors, creditors, employees, and the economy in general.[57]