Case Digest (G.R. No. 193108) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Marilyn Victorio-Aquino vs. Pacific Plans, Inc., petitioner Marilyn Victorio-Aquino held two traditional open-ended educational plans (PEPTrads) issued by Pacific Plans, Inc. (now Abundance Providers and Entrepreneurs Corporation). On April 7, 2005, facing more than 34,000 outstanding plans and inability to meet its obligations, Pacific Plans filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation under P.D. 902-A before the Regional Trial Court (“Rehabilitation Court”). Mamerto A. Marcelo, Jr. was appointed Rehabilitation Receiver. In April 2006, the Court approved an Alternative Rehabilitation Plan (“ARP”) converting plan benefits into fixed-value entitlements as of December 31, 2004, including a tuition support feature funded by NAPOCOR bonds and peso-dollar conversions. When the Philippine Peso unexpectedly strengthened in early 2008, diminishing the U.S. Dollar-denominated bond security, the Receiver filed a Modified Rehabilitation Plan (“MRP”): it suspended tuition support, conve Case Digest (G.R. No. 193108) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Pre-Need Plans
- Respondent Pacific Plans, Inc. (now Abundance Providers and Entrepreneurs Corp.) markets “PEPTrads,” traditional open-ended educational plans guaranteeing full tuition regardless of cost fluctuations.
- Petitioner Marilyn Victorio-Aquino holds two PEPTrad units.
- Rehabilitation Proceedings
- April 7, 2005 – Pacific Plans filed for corporate rehabilitation under P.D. No. 902-A before the Regional Trial Court (Rehabilitation Court), citing inability to meet obligations; some 34,000 outstanding PEPTrads.
- April 12, 2005 – Rehabilitation Court issued a stay order, appointed Mamerto A. Marcelo, Jr. as rehabilitation receiver, and required creditors to comment.
- February 16, 2006 – Receiver submitted an Alternative Rehabilitation Plan (ARP) converting benefits into fixed-value entitlements as of December 31, 2004 (“Base Year-end 2004 Entitlement”), computed with 7% net interest and providing tuition support through SY 2009-2010, funded by NAPOCOR bonds and forward Dollar sales.
- April 27, 2006 – Rehabilitation Court approved the ARP; implementation commenced.
- Modification of Rehabilitation Plan
- February 29 & March 7, 2008 – Citing peso appreciation that diluted the USD-denominated trust fund, respondent and receiver proposed a Modified Rehabilitation Plan (MRP) to suspend tuition support, convert Peso-denominated liabilities into U.S. Dollar entitlements pro rata, and pay in USD at bond maturity.
- July 28, 2008 – Rehabilitation Court approved the MRP under its “cram-down” power.
- September 26, 2008 – Petitioner filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA) and sought TRO/preliminary injunction.
- February 26, 2010 – CA denied the petition; July 21, 2010 – CA denied reconsideration.
Issues:
- Whether a petition for review under Rule 43 was the proper remedy to challenge approval of the MRP.
- Whether petitioner paid the correct docket fees and complied with service and motion requirements.
- Whether the CA decision was contrary to law and Supreme Court issuances regarding mode of appeal and fee payment.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)