Case Digest (G.R. No. 188365)
Facts:
BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. v. Pryce Gases, Inc., International Finance Corporation, and Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V., G.R. No. 188365, June 29, 2011, Supreme Court Second Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners below are BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. (BFB); respondents below are Pryce Gases, Inc. (PGI), creditor International Finance Corporation (IFC), and creditor Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N.V. (FMO). IFC and FMO filed a Petition for Rehabilitation for PGI with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, on 27 August 2002 (raffled to Branch 142 as SP Proc. No. 02-1016). The petition sought financial restructuring (conversion of dollar loans to peso, splitting debt into sustainable senior loans and redeemable preferred shares) to preserve employment and restore cash flow; under the plan BFB’s loan as a non-MTI creditor was to be paid over ten years.
Presiding Judge Estela Perlas-Bernabe inhibited; the case was re-raffled to RTC, Branch 138. On 24 January 2003 RTC, Branch 138 gave due course and appointed Gener Mendoza as Rehabilitation Receiver to evaluate and recommend a rehabilitation plan. In May–July 2003 PGI’s parent offered dacion en pago of real estate assets and the receiver recommended payment to creditors secured by non-operating assets by dacion values pegged to appraisals. BFB objected to payment by dacion en pago.
On 10 October 2003 RTC, Branch 138 approved the rehabilitation plan. BFB filed a notice of appeal on 3 November 2003. PGI moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect it by filing a record on appeal. Before Branch 138 ruled on the motion to dismiss, BFB on 20 April 2006 filed a Motion With Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal and Instead Be Allowed to File a Petition for Review. On 9 May 2006 RTC, Branch 138 dismissed BFB’s appeal for failure to perfect it by filing the record on appeal, and on 16 February 2007 denied BFB’s motion for reconsideration on the ground that motions for reconsideration are prohibited under the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation.
On 19 April 2007 BFB sought relief from the Court of Appeals (filed as a petition for certiorari/denominated petition for review under Rule 65). In a Decision dated 26 February 2008 (CA-G.R. SP No. 98626) the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, holding that corporate rehabilitation is a special proceeding requiring a record on appeal under Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and that BFB’s notice alone, filed before A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC took effect, was insufficient to perfect an appeal; the CA also noted defects in the petition’s verification. The CA denied ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in sustaining the RTC, Branch 138, in dismissing BFB’s appeal for failure to perfect it?
- Did the dismissal of BFB’s appeal compel BFB to accept a dacion en pago arrangement contrary ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)