G.R. No. 201199 - Steel Corp. of the Philippines vs. Mapfre Insular Insurance Corp.

The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP) against several insurance companies.
SCP challenges the Court of Appeals' decision that declared void the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) order directing the insurance companies to pay SCP for insurance claims.
The RTC had previously ruled in favor of SCP, allowing it to claim insurance proceeds for damages incurred from fire incidents.

SCP is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing steel products and had secured loans from various creditors, mortgaging its assets.
A Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) required SCP to insure its assets, with insurance proceeds payable to the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), the appointed trustee.
SCP faced financial difficulties, leading to a corporate rehabilitation petition filed by one of its creditors in 2006, which resulted in a stay order on claims against SCP.

SCP had insurance coverage for its assets under a collective master policy and suffered a fire incident in 2008, receiving $450,000 in insurance proceeds, which BPI withheld.
In 2009, another fire incident occurred, prompting SCP to file a motion for the insurance proceeds amounting to $28 million for property damage and $8 million for business interruption.
The RTC initially ruled in favor of SCP, ordering the insurance companies to pay the claimed amounts.

The Court of Appeals later reversed the RTC's decision, declaring that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over SCP's insurance claims.
The appellate court emphasized that rehabilitation courts only have jurisdiction over claims by creditors against the distressed company, not claims by the company against its debtors.

The Court of Appeals found that SCP's motion for payment of insurance proceeds constituted a collection suit, which should be filed in a separate proceeding.
The appellate court highlighted that jurisdiction over a case is acquired upon the payment of prescribed fees, which SCP failed to comply with in its motion.

SCP contended that the Court of Appeals erred in entertaining the insurers' petition for certiorari and in ruling that the RTC acted with grave abuse of discretion.
SCP argued that the rehabilitation court had jurisdiction to direct the insurers to pay the insurance proceeds necessary for its rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, stating that the RTC did not have jurisdiction over SCP's insurance claims.
The Court clarified th...continue reading