Title
Supreme Court
Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 175844
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2013
Sarabia Manor Hotel faced financial distress, sought rehabilitation, and proposed a feasible plan. BPI opposed, but the Supreme Court upheld the plan, deeming it reasonable and protective of creditors' interests.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175844)

Rehabilitation Plan Proposed by Sarabia

• Interest restructuring: uniform escalating rates from 7% p.a. (2002–2005) up to 14% p.a. (2018)
• Principal amortization: annual payments beginning 2004 based on cash‐flow projections
• Current payables to suppliers and government to be paid on maturity
• Conversion of ₱18.75 million advances by stockholders into equity; deferment of other advances totaling ₱42.69 million
• Full protection of operations and employees; no dividends or stockholder compensation during rehabilitation

RTC Findings and Order

The Iloilo RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, issued a stay order, and appointed a receiver. In its August 7, 2003 order, it approved the plan as modified by the receiver’s recommendations:
• Recompute outstanding loan balances, capitalize 2001–2002 interest, waive penalties
• Extend repayment to 2003–2019 with a two-year principal grace period
• Fix interest at 6.75% p.a. plus VAT for the entire term
• Annual amortization payments; stockholders to cover any deficiency; excess funds accelerate servicing
• Payment of suppliers and government obligations on due dates
• Conversion of advances and deferred credits into equity improving debt‐to‐equity ratio to 0.85:1
• Approval required for material capital expenditures
• Termination of existing foreign management contract; appointment of new management subject to court approval
• Maintenance of real‐estate mortgages; release of surety obligations upon sufficient collateral

The RTC found the plan feasible, realistic, and viable based on Sarabia’s historical cash generation, projected revenues, and BPI’s published cost of funds.

Court of Appeals Modification

On April 24, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC order but reinstated the stockholders’ surety obligations to BPI as an additional safeguard. It upheld the 6.75% p.a. interest rate as reasonable—higher than BPI’s 5.5% time-deposit rate and the 6.4% p.a. average for commercial papers—and noted that the plan could be later modified if market rates changed.

Issue on Review

Whether the CA correctly affirmed the rehabilitation plan, with modification reinstating stockholder sureties, over BPI’s opposition that the fixed interest rate and extended term unfairly prejudiced its rights as a secured creditor.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Procedural Bar – BPI’s Rule 45 petition raised primarily factual questions (e.g., Sarabia’s capacity to pay, BPI’s cost of funds) not reviewable on certiorari absent grave abuse of discretion.
  2. Feasibility of Rehabilitation – The plan met criteria under the Interim Rules: Sarabia remained an ongoing, profitable concern able to generate funds; projections were anchored on realistic assumptions; creditors would recover more over time as a going concern than via immediate liquidation.
  3. Protection of Creditor Interests – Adequate safe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.