Case Summary (G.R. No. 23226)
Relevant Events and Proceedings
On September 16, 1997, the EYCO Group filed a petition for the declaration of suspension of payment with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC found the petition to be adequate, leading to a Suspension Order that halted claims against EYCO. Union Bank initially acted as part of a consortium of creditor banks but later opted to file stand-alone civil cases against EYCO without notifying the other banks. This resulted in extensive legal proceedings, culminating in multiple court decisions addressing the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties.
Jurisdiction and Filings
Union Bank sought to dismiss the SEC proceedings on jurisdictional grounds, claiming the appropriate venue was the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under the Insolvency Law. However, the RTC dismissed Union Bank's certiorari petition for forum shopping, affirming SEC jurisdiction over the suspension of payment. The Supreme Court later clarified that the SEC retained jurisdiction over EYCO’s case, even after determining EYCO’s insolvency.
Liquidation and Appointment of the Liquidator
On March 31, 2001, the SEC appointed Concepcion as liquidator after the consortium of banks, including Union Bank, contested the SEC's approval of EYCO's rehabilitation plan. Concepcion subsequently filed to intervene in the collection case initiated by Union Bank, but the RTC denied his motion, stating he lacked standing due to the purported invalidity of his appointment.
Appellate Decisions and Findings
Concepcion appealed the RTC's denial to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's ruling, allowing Concepcion to intervene in the civil case. The appellate court underscored the urgency of Concepcion’s position as liquidator, emphasizing that denying his intervention would undermine the collective interests of EYCO’s creditors and disrupt the liquidation process.
Petitioner’s Arguments and Court’s Rationale
Union Bank contended that Concepcion had no legal interest in the proceedings and that his appointment as liquidator was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court clarified that during the period the SEC had jurisdiction, it was permitted to appoint Concepcion as liquidator. The SEC's orders, including the te
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 23226)
Background of the Case
- This case arises from a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Union Bank of the Philippines (Union Bank) seeking to overturn the Decision dated July 22, 2003, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 75355, as well as the subsequent Resolution dated November 7, 2003, which denied Union Bank's motion for reconsideration.
- The case pertains to the EYCO Group of Companies, which filed a Petition for Suspension of Payment with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 16, 1997. The petition sought suspension of payment, the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver/committee, and approval of a rehabilitation plan, with an alternative prayer for liquidation.
- The SEC found the petition sufficient in form and substance, resulting in a Suspension Order that halted all actions against EYCO pending further hearings.
Actions Taken by Creditor Banks
- A consortium of private banks, including Union Bank, convened to discuss their collection options against EYCO. Eventually, Union Bank opted to file civil actions independently against EYCO and its sureties without the consortium's knowledge.
- On September 23, 1997, Union Bank filed a complaint for a sum of money (Civil Case No. 97-2184) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, targeting four members of the EYCO Group and their spouses as sureties.
Court Proceedings and Initial Rulings
- The RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment against EYCO's properties on September 24, 1997. Uni