Case Digest (G.R. No. 193065)
Facts:
Deutsche Bank AG v. Court of Appeals and Steel Corporation of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193065, February 27, 2012, the Supreme Court Third Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Private respondent Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SteelCorp) obtained a loan consortium in 1995, one lender being Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC). After SteelCorp defaulted, Equitable PCI Bank filed a creditor-initiated petition for corporate rehabilitation in the Regional Trial Court of Batangas (RTC‑Batangas), docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 06-7993; the RTC approved a Rehabilitation Plan in a decision dated December 3, 2007.
In February 2008 RCBC assigned to Deutsche Bank AG certain loan claims against SteelCorp. Deutsche Bank notified the RTC‑Batangas of the assignment and entered an appearance. On October 28, 2009, the RTC‑Batangas issued an order directing assignees, including Deutsche Bank, to disclose the actual consideration paid for the assigned debts. Deutsche Bank sought relief from the Court of Appeals (CA) by filing a petition for certiorari (with urgent application) docketed as CA‑G.R. SP No. 111556.
Several other creditors filed related certiorari petitions to the CA arising from the same October 28, 2009 RTC order. Separately, Vitarich Corporation’s rehabilitation proceedings in the RTC‑Bulacan produced a different CA petition, docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 107535 (the “Vitarich Petition”), in which Vitarich sought, among other things, an order compelling assignees to disclose amounts paid for assigned credits.
On SteelCorp’s motion dated February 18, 2010 the CA issued a Resolution on March 12, 2010 consolidating the Deutsche Bank petition with the Vitarich Petition pursuant to Section 3(a), Rule III of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA). Deutsche Bank moved for reconsideration, arguing that consolidation requires that the cases be “related” (arise from same act/event, involve same or like issues, and depend largely on the same evidence), not merely that they present a common question of law; the CA denied reconsideration on July 19, 2010 and reaffirmed consolidation citing Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, Inc. and other authorities.
Deutsche Bank filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before this Court assailing the CA’s March 12 and July 19, 2010 Resolutions as issued without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. SteelCorp later filed a motion i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition rendered moot and academic by SteelCorp’s withdrawal of its motion for consolidation, such that the Court should decline to decide the case?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ordered consolidation of CA‑G.R. SP No. 111556 (Deutsche Bank) with CA‑G.R. SP No. 107535 (Vitarich) on the sole ground that the two case...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)