G.R. No. 198222 - Golden Cane Furniture Manufacturing Corp. vs. Steelpro Philippines, Inc.

Golden Cane Furniture Manufacturing Corporation (Golden Cane) filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation on November 3, 2008 before the RTC of San Fernando, Pampanga.
The petition was processed under the provisions of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, and the initial hearing was set for January 7, 2009.
Golden Cane’s petition was later raffled to Branch 42 and docketed as Comm. Case No. 058.

Litis pendentia and forum shopping due to the existence of a separate Petition for Suspension of Payments filed in 2007 involving the same parties.
Consistent failure of the rehabilitation receiver to discharge her duties.
The receiver’s failure to file the required bond on time.
Failure to submit the company’s interim financial statements.

Following the denial, the RTC lifted the stay order initially issued on November 11, 2008.
Golden Cane moved for reconsideration on June 25, 2009, which was subsequently denied on August 27, 2009.
Golden Cane received notice of the denial on October 2, 2009.

On November 23, 2009, Golden Cane elevated the matter to the CA through a petition for certiorari, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111530.
The CA dismissed the petition on November 27, 2009 for being the wrong mode of appeal, holding that the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as clarified by A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC.
Golden Cane sought reconsideration of the CA’s dismissal, but the motion was denied on August 16, 2011.
Ultimately, on September 28, 2011, Golden Cane filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Golden Cane contended that the effectivity of the 2008 Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation superseded A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC and provided a different procedural remedy.

Under Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules, an order denying due course to a petition rendered before the approval of the rehabilitation plan is not appealable to the CA through Rule 43.
Golden Cane argued that the appropriate recourse should have been a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

The case was properly considered under the regime of the Interim Rules, given that Golden Cane’s petition was filed and the initial hearing occurred prior to the effectivity of the 2008 Rules, as determined by the transitory provision.

The Interim Rules governed corporate rehabilitation cases before the enactment of subsequent rules.

A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC clarified that decisions and final orders under the Interim Rules were appealable by a petition for review under Rule 43.

The enactment of the 2008 Rules introduced remedial provisions including motions for reconsideration but maintained that appeals from decisions approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan should be by Rule 43.
The later enactment of the 2013 Rules (through A.M. No. 12-12-11-SC) modified the scope of appeal, eliminating the remedy of petition for review in favor of petition for certiorari for orders regarding the rehabilitation plan; however, this did not affect cases already under the Interim Rules like Golden Cane’s.

Whether the proper remedy to challenge the RTC’s dismissal of Golden Cane’s petition for corporate rehabilitation is:

A petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, as prescribed in A.M. No. 04-9-07-SC and applicable to cases filed under the Interim Rules; or
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as argued by Golden Cane in light of the procedural provisions of the 2008 Rules.