Title
Supreme Court
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Fastech Synergy Philippines, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 206150
Decision Date
Aug 9, 2017
Fastech Corporations' rehabilitation petition dismissed by Supreme Court due to lack of feasibility, insufficient financial commitments, and unreliable financial statements under FRIA.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 224567)

Nature of the Petition and Initial Proceedings

This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The petition contests the September 28, 2012 Decision and March 5, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals, with the petitioner seeking modifications regarding the concerns related to the corporate rehabilitation of the respondents, collectively known as the Fastech Corporations. Initially, the Rehabilitation Court had dismissed the respondents' Joint Petition for corporate rehabilitation due to perceived deficiencies in their financial disclosure and prospects of successful rehabilitation.

Background of the Rehabilitation Petition

The Fastech Corporations filed a joint petition for corporate rehabilitation citing common management, assets, and creditors. The consolidation of their financial difficulties was due to inadequate assets to cover their debts totaling approximately ₱73.9 million and USD 2.35 million owed to various creditors including banks. Their Rehabilitation Plan proposed a two-year grace period on loan payments and adjustments in interest rates, which led to the Rehabilitation Court's initial approval through a Commencement Order and the appointment of a Rehabilitation Receiver.

Development of the Rehabilitation Hearings

During proceedings, the Rehabilitation Receiver, Atty. Rosario Bernaldo, presented a favorable assessment of the Rehabilitation Plan, indicating that the plan was viable and emphasizing the potential for rehabilitation given sufficient financial backing. However, discrepancies arose from the creditors' perspectives, notably from the audits and financial statements that had not fully satisfied the court's scrutiny regarding their authenticity and reliability.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals eventually granted the Fastech Corporations' petition, reversing the Rehabilitation Court’s dismissal. The appellate court favored the opinion of the Rehabilitation Receiver, asserting that the rehabilitation efforts would not only benefit the corporation but also its employees and creditors, maintaining the public interest in the continuation of the Fastech Corporations' business operations.

Concerns from Creditors and Subsequent Motions

Following the appellate court's decision, both Land Bank and Planters Bank raised concerns about the viability of the Rehabilitation Plan, arguing that it would inadequately benefit the creditors and prolong financial obligations beyond reasonable expectations. These banks filed motions for reconsideration, which were subsequently denied by the Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court Review and Findings

The Supreme Court addressed the primary issue of whether the Court of Appeals erred in allowing the Rehabilitation Plan to proceed. A thorough review revealed deficiencies in the execution of the plan, particularly regarding the lack of a material financial commitment and a requisite liquidation analysis critical for assessing the respondents’ capacity for rehabilitation. The Court underscored that a corporation seeking rehabilitation must present a credible plan indicating a probable return to solvency, which the respondents failed to adequately demonstrate.

Conclusions on Rehabilitation Viability

The Court articulated clear standards for evaluating rehabilitation plans, emphasizing the necessity o

...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.