G.R. No. 168384 - Reyes vs. Balde II

In August 1997, Philippine Wireless, Inc. (PWI) secured a ₱20 million credit facility from Capitol Development Bank (Capitol) under a Credit Agreement, with Republic Telecommunications, Inc. (RETELCO) as corporate surety.
PWI borrowed:

After several agreed extensions, the aggregate unpaid balance as of June 10, 1998 was ₱23,363,378.73, which ballooned to ₱24,669,709.40 by July 10, 1998.

On June 15, 1998, Capitol demanded payment from PWI and RETELCO. Upon non-payment, Capitol filed Civil Case No. 66906 in the RTC of Pasig for collection.
On September 15, 2008, the RTC of Pasig rendered judgment in favor of Capitol, ordering PWI and RETELCO, jointly and severally, to pay:

PWI and RETELCO appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 41.
While the appeal was pending, PWI and RETELCO filed a petition for corporate rehabilitation in the RTC of Makati (August 20, 2009).
On August 24, 2009, the rehabilitation court issued a Stay Order appointing a receiver and staying “enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise…against the petitioners and its guarantors and sureties.”
The CA initially suspended, then resumed, the appellate proceedings; on April 17, 2013, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the RTC judgment. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on July 16, 2013.
PWI and RETELCO elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending that the Stay Order should have suspended the CA appeal.

Whether an appellate proceeding on a money judgment in a collection case, already appealed before the CA, may nonetheless proceed despite a Stay Order issued in a later-filed petition for corporate rehabilitation.