Case Digest (G.R. No. 170625)
Facts:
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals and TF KO Development Corporation, G.R. No. 170625, October 17, 2008, the Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI); respondent is TF KO Development Corporation. The case arises from respondent's petition filed on November 10, 2003 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, General Santos City, entitled a petition for declaration in the state of suspension of payments with approval of a proposed rehabilitation plan (Corporate Case No. 26).Respondent, a domestic corporation engaged in agricultural commerce and later subdivision development, had obtained loans from several banks. As of the petition it alleged indebtedness to Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) of about P32,000,000; to petitioner BPI of about P34,680,298.40 (interest inclusive); and to Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. (Metrobank) of about P3,500,000. Some mortgages were already the subject of pending foreclosure proceedings in the RTC of Koronadal at the time the rehabilitation petition was filed.
The RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and on November 14, 2003 issued a Stay Order enjoining enforcement of claims, scheduled hearings and appointed Pedro N. Suson as rehabilitation receiver; the receiver accepted, posted bond and took oath. By order dated January 7, 2004 the RTC enjoined LBP and the sheriff from foreclosure and directed creditors to file oppositions. Petitioner BPI filed a verified comment (January 7, 2004) opposing the petition on grounds including alleged defects, lack of certification against forum shopping, and that the rehabilitation plan was not viable; LBP and Metrobank also opposed. Respondent’s president, Flora G. Ko, offered to personally settle the Metrobank obligation.
After a creditors’ meeting and the rehabilitation receiver’s submission of a proposed Final Mode of Payment (March 22, 2004), LBP and BPI denied acceptance of that mode. The RTC extended the stay (November 9, 2004) and on January 24, 2005 rendered a decision approving respondent’s rehabilitation plan, setting out payment schedules for BPI and LBP, discharging Metrobank from the plan (to be settled personally by Flora Ko), terminating the stay order and discharging the receiver. Petitioner received a copy of the decision on January 26, 2005.
Petitioner sought and obtained from the Court of Appeals an extension to file a Rule 43 petition until February 25, 2005, but actually filed the petition for review on February 28, 2005. On July 29, 2005 the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for review for several procedural defects (alleged late filing, verification/certification signature problems, failure to attach pertinent documents and pleadings per Section 6(c), Rule 43, omission of date of issue of counsel’s IBP O.R., and unpaid docket fees for a TRO/PI). A motion for reconsideration was denied on November 22, 2005. Petitioner then filed t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals properly dismiss petitioner’s petition for review on procedural grounds?
- Should the RTC’s approval of TF KO Development Corporation’s rehabilitation plan be set aside on the substantive grounds asserted by petitioner (maturity of obligations, lack of factual/legal basis, forum shopping, and absence of certificati...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)