Case Digest (G.R. No. 206528)
Facts:
Philippine Asset Growth Two, Inc. (Successor‑in‑Interest of Planters Development Bank) and Planters Development Bank v. Fastech Synergy Philippines, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 206528, June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court First Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners were Planters Development Bank (PDB) and its successor‑in‑interest Philippine Asset Growth Two, Inc. (PAGTI); respondents were Fastech Synergy Philippines, Inc. (formerly First Asia System Technology, Inc.), Fastech Microassembly & Test, Inc., Fastech Electronique, Inc., and Fastech Properties, Inc. (collectively, respondents). On April 8, 2011 the respondents filed a verified joint petition for corporate rehabilitation in the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (SP Case No. M‑7130), alleging commonly managed operations, shared assets and common creditors — among them PDB. The petition listed two parcels of land registered in the name of Fastech Properties as common assets; PDB had initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure over those titles and was the highest bidder at the April 13, 2011 sale.
Respondents submitted a Rehabilitation Plan proposing, inter alia, waivers of accrued interest/penalties, a two‑year grace period followed by a 12‑year amortization (with capitalized interest), and reduced interest rates for secured creditors. The RTC‑Makati issued a Commencement Order with Stay Order on April 19, 2011 and appointed a rehabilitation receiver. The receiver initially recommended that respondents may be rehabilitated, and respondents filed a revised plan and supporting documents. After creditor comments and the receiver’s supportive reports, the RTC‑Makati nonetheless dismissed the petition in a Resolution dated December 9, 2011, finding respondents’ financial statements unreliable (pointing to auditors’ disclaimer/opinion issues), unaudited and unsigned 2010 statements, unexplained additions/omissions in accounts, and withheld bases for financial projections.
Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 122836). The CA issued a TRO (Jan. 24, 2012) and later a writ of preliminary injunction (March 22, 2012) to preserve the status quo pending resolution. On September 28, 2012 the CA reversed the RTC‑Makati, giving great weight to the rehabilitation receiver’s opinion and finding the Rehabilitation Plan feasible; the CA approved the plan, remanded supervision to the RTC‑Makati, and permanently enjoined PDB from foreclosing the subject properties. PDB’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied in a Resolution dated March 5, 2013.
DivinaLaw entered appearance for PDB in February 2013 and PAGTI filed a motion for substitution (claiming acquisition of PDB’s claims) on April 1, 2013. PAGTI and PDB filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on April 18, 2013, challenging the CA’s September 28, 2012 Decision and March 5, 2013 Resolution. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition as filed out of time, asserting that Janda Asia & Associates (still counsel of record for PDB) received the CA Resolution on March 12, 2013, so the 15‑day Rule 45 period expired ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for review on certiorari timely filed?
- Was the Rehabilitation Plan of respondents feasible and properly approva...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)