Case Digest (G.R. No. 188146)
Facts:
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Royal Ferry Services, Inc., G.R. No. 188146, February 01, 2017, the Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Royal Ferry Services, Inc. (Royal Ferry) is a Philippine corporation whose Articles of Incorporation state its principal office at 2521 A. Bonifacio Street, Bangkal, Makati City, but which at the time of the events held office at Room 203, BF Condominium Building, Andres Soriano corner Solano Streets, Intramuros, Manila. On August 28, 2005, Royal Ferry filed a verified Petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, alleging insolvency, cessation of operations in 2002, and that most remaining assets and books were located at its Manila address.
On December 19, 2005, the RTC of Manila issued an Order adjudging Royal Ferry insolvent and directing preservation and control of its assets and books pending election of an assignee. On December 23, 2005, Pilipinas Shell filed a Formal Notice of Claim and a Motion to Dismiss, asserting improper venue: Pilipinas Shell relied on Royal Ferry’s Articles of Incorporation listing Makati as its principal office and contended the petition should have been filed in the RTC of Makati.
The RTC of Manila initially denied the Motion to Dismiss on January 30, 2006, finding that Royal Ferry had shown it had abandoned its Makati office and was resident in Manila. Pilipinas Shell moved for reconsideration; on June 15, 2006 the RTC granted reconsideration, held that a corporation cannot change its place of business without amending its Articles of Incorporation, and dismissed the Petition for Voluntary Insolvency.
Royal Ferry appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In a Decision dated January 30, 2009, the CA granted the appeal, set aside the RTC’s June 15, 2006 Order dismissing the petition, and reinstated the RTC’s adjudication of insolvency, reasoning that Pilipinas Shell had not secured the written consent of all creditors as required by Section 81 of the Insolvency Law and that the venue of Manila was proper. Pilipinas Shell’s motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied on May 26, 2009, and Pilipinas Shell filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on July 20, 2009.
During the Supreme Court proceedings, Royal Ferry moved to dismiss the petition as moot, citing a Compromise Agreement approved in a related CA case (CA-G.R. CV No. 102522) in which Pilipinas Shell and certain individuals (the Gascons) settled claims; Royal Ferry argued that Pilipinas Shell thereby abandoned its claim against Royal Ferry. Pilipinas ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Petition moot and academic in view of the Compromise Agreement approved in CA-G.R. CV No. 102522?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in taking cognizance of Royal Ferry’s appeal despite alleged noncompliance with Rule 44, Section 13 of the Rules of Court?
- Was the Petition for Voluntary Insolvency properly filed in the Regional Trial Court of Manila—i.e., was venue (and the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)