Title
BF Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 76879
Decision Date
Oct 3, 1990
BF Homes' loan dispute with Roa and Mendoza led to civil case suspension during rehabilitation, reinstating attachment lien while ensuring equal creditor treatment under P.D. 902-A.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 76879)

Facts:

Parties Involved:

  • Petitioner in G.R. No. 76879: BF Homes, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in real estate development.
  • Respondents in G.R. No. 76879: Court of Appeals, Rosalinda R. Roa, and Vicente Mendoza.
  • Petitioners in G.R. No. 77143: Rosalinda R. Roa and Vicente Mendoza.
  • Respondent in G.R. No. 77143: Court of Appeals and BF Homes, Inc.

Transaction and Loan Agreement:

  • On July 19, 1984, BF Homes, Inc. borrowed P250,000 from Rosalinda R. Roa and Vicente Mendoza, with an interest rate of 33% per annum, payable after 32 days. The loan was secured by two post-dated checks.

Rehabilitation Proceedings:

  • On September 25, 1984, BF Homes filed a Petition for Rehabilitation and Suspension of Payments under Sec. 5(d) of P.D. No. 902-A. The petition sought to suspend all claims against BF Homes while allowing it to continue normal operations.

Civil Case for Loan Recovery:

  • On October 17, 1984, Roa and Mendoza filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-43104) to recover the loan amount, including interest and attorney’s fees. They also sought a writ of preliminary attachment against BF Homes’ properties.
  • The RTC granted the writ on October 22, 1984.

BF Homes’ Motion to Dismiss:

  • BF Homes moved to dismiss the case on October 25, 1984, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to the pending SEC Case No. 002693. The RTC denied the motion on November 20, 1984, and the reconsideration on January 11, 1985.

Certiorari to the Court of Appeals:

  • BF Homes filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 13, 1985, seeking to annul the RTC’s orders. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order on February 14, 1985.

Management Committee and Suspension of Claims:

  • On March 18, 1985, the SEC created a management committee for BF Homes and suspended all claims against it.

Court of Appeals’ Decision:

  • On June 6, 1986, the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint and declared the writ of attachment null and void. However, upon reconsideration, it upheld the RTC’s jurisdiction but suspended the proceedings until the management committee was impleaded. It also maintained the dissolution of the writ of attachment.

Supreme Court Petitions:

  • BF Homes filed G.R. No. 76879, contesting the continuation of civil proceedings after the management committee’s substitution.
  • Roa and Mendoza filed G.R. No. 77143, opposing the substitution of the management committee and the dissolution of the writ of attachment.

Rehabilitation Plan Approval:

  • On February 2, 1988, the SEC approved BF Homes’ revised rehabilitation plan and dissolved the management committee, appointing a rehabilitation receiver.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Suspension of Claims under Rehabilitation: Under Sec. 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A, all claims against a corporation under rehabilitation must be suspended to allow the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to focus on restructuring and rehabilitating the company without judicial interference.
  2. Writ of Attachment: The writ of preliminary attachment, issued before the creation of the management committee, remains valid. Its dissolution would deprive the creditors of security if the rehabilitation fails.
  3. Equality of Creditors: All creditors must stand on equal footing during rehabilitation. No creditor should be given preferential treatment through attachment or other means.
  4. Purpose of Suspension: The suspension of claims is intended to provide the rehabilitation receiver with the necessary tranquility to assess the company’s viability and implement the rehabilitation plan.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.