Title
G. Holdings, Inc. vs. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 226213
Decision Date
Sep 27, 2017
CEPALCO sued FPI for unpaid power bills; FPI transferred assets to GHI via a Deed of Assignment, deemed simulated and fraudulent. Courts ruled the Deed inexistent, favoring CEPALCO.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 226213)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Petitioner G. Holdings, Inc. (GHI) claimed ownership of a ferro-alloy smelting facility and related assets under a Deed of Assignment dated March 11, 2003 executed by Ferrochrome Philippines, Inc. (FPI).
    • Respondent Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO) supplied power to FPI’s plant at the PHIVIDEC Industrial Estate in Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, beginning March 1990.
  • Factual and Procedural History
    • FPI defaulted on power bills totaling ₱16,301,588.06 as of March 1996; partial payments left a balance which grew to over ₱29 million by May 1996. CEPALCO disconnected service and filed a collection suit (Civil Case No. 65789) in RTC-Pasig in July 1996.
    • RTC-Pasig granted partial summary judgment on April 22, 1999, awarding CEPALCO ₱25.6 million; on January 19, 2004 it affirmed this amount and added surcharges and other charges. FPI appealed, and CEPALCO obtained execution pending appeal.
    • Sheriff Baron levied FPI’s real and personal properties in April 2004. FPI secured a TRO and preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA G.R. SP No. 83224.
    • On April 5, 2004, GHI filed Civil Case No. 2004-111 in RTC-Cagayan de Oro (RTC-CDO) for nullification of the levy, recovery of possession, and damages, alleging valid transfer of assets under the Deed of Assignment.
    • CEPALCO filed its Answer with compulsory counterclaim and cross-claim, attacking the Deed of Assignment as simulated and fraudulent, made in fraud of creditors after the partial judgment.
    • The CA in CA G.R. CV No. 86228 (collection case) partially modified and otherwise affirmed the RTC-Pasig decisions; FPI’s further petition was denied by the Supreme Court in April 2010. The CA also dismissed FPI’s certiorari petition in the execution case.
    • RTC-CDO on July 22, 2013 rendered judgment: rescinded the Deed of Assignment, awarded CEPALCO actual (₱256,587.48) and exemplary (₱1 million) damages plus attorney’s fees (₱500,000), and lifted the injunctive relief.
    • GHI appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 03366-MIN); on April 14, 2016 the CA denied the appeal, affirmed the RTC-CDO Decision, and its July 25, 2016 Resolution denied reconsideration. GHI then filed this Rule 45 petition.

Issues:

  • Whether the CA erred in not dismissing CEPALCO’s compulsory counterclaim for non-payment of docket fees.
  • Whether the CA erred in holding the Deed of Assignment to be absolutely simulated.
  • Whether the CA erred in affirming rescission of the Deed of Assignment absent an independent rescission action.
  • Whether the CA erred in finding the Deed of Assignment fraudulent vis-à-vis creditors and accompanied by badges of fraud.
  • Whether GHI is entitled to recover damages under its Complaint.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.