Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

A brief summary of the incidents shows the petitioner IFSC is under receivership for the purpose of rehabilitating its ailing financial health before RTC, Pasig Branch 153. In the meantime, private respondent CIPI, a corporation likewise suffering from liquidity problems, filed a petition for suspension of payments which was raffled to the RTC, Pasig, Branch 158. After respondent judge Hon. Briccio Ygaña of Branch 153 approved the rehabilitation plan of IFSC and appointed its receiver, said petitioner received a notice from RTC, Branch 158 directing it to submit a comment opposition to said petition of CIPI, being one of said private respondent's creditors. In its comment, IFSC claimed that it found tself in a peculiar situation with CIPI for they are both creditor and debtor of each other and consequently, proposed three courses of action in dealing with its receivables and payables to CIPI. Later, CIPI's petition for suspension of payment was dismissed and the RTC, Branch 158 declared that its creditors may resort to whatever remedies under the law in pursuing their credits against private respondent. With the view of protecting IFSC's creditors, the rehabilitation receiver, Mr. Enriquez, recommended some modifications on the petitioner's approved rehabilitation plan. These modifications were approved by the RTC, Branch 153 per its Order dated June 20, 2001.

IFSC wrote a letter to CIPI for the immediate implementation of the above Order. In reply, CIPI claimed that it could not give in the IFCS's request because after the dismissal of its earlier petition for suspension of payment, it filed a petition for rehabilitation which was again raffled to RTC, Branch 158. But IFCS informed CIPI that it had already implemented the June 20, 2001 Order in its books because said Order was not only immediately executory but had reached finality. This prompted CIPI to file before RTC, Branch 153 an urgent motion to suspend the implementation of the June 20, 2001 Order. Said motion was granted in the Order of respondent judge dated January 11, 2002. Petitioner moved

for reconsideration and on a later date, filed a manifestation alleging that CIPI's petition for rehabilitation had been dismissed by RTC, Branch 158. In its comment, CIPI averred that after the dismissal of its petition for rehabilitation, it subsequently filed a petition for voluntary insolvency, which was raffled to RTC, Branch 153 and that on March 8, 2002, said lower court declared CIPI as insolvent.

The thrust of petitioner IFSC is that the Stay Order dated August 2, 2002 of the RTC, Branch 158 has no legal effect on the June 20, 2001 Order for the following

reasons:

1. The June 20, 2001 Order is immediately executory under Section 5 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation and as such, petitioner had immediately effected the same in its books. IFSC claims that since the act sought to be suspended had already been accomplished, there was no more order the implementation of which could still be held in abeyance.

2. The June 20, 2001 Order had also reached finality for failure of CIPI to file a petition for review or to appeal the said order.

3. The stay order was issued way after the June 20, 2001 Order.

Likewise, IFSC avers that the institution of the voluntary insolvency petition by CIPI should not affect the June 20, 2001 Order because the petition was filed beyond the finality of the latter order.

We deny the petition.

To begin with, We do not subscribe to the submission of IFSC that the June 20, 2001 Order is immediately executory and that there is no need for said petitioner to apply for its execution. Sec 23 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC) provides:

Sec. 23. Approval of the Rehabilitation Plan The court may approve a rehabilitation plan even over the opposition of creditors holding a majority of the total liabilities of the debtor if, in its judgment, the rehabilitation of the debtor is feasible and the opposition of the creditors is manifestly unreasonable.

In approving the rehabilitation plan, the court shall issue the necessary orders or processes for its immediate and successful implementation. It may impose such terms, conditions, or restrictions as the effective implementation and monitoring thereof may reasonably require, or for the protection and preservation of the interests of the creditor should the plan fail.

By analogy, this Court believes that the aforequoted provision is equally applicable to an Order approving modifications or alterations of the rehabilitation plan. Thus, it is still necessary for petitioner to move for the enforcement of the June 20, 2001, especially after it reached finality, but it failed to do so. In the meantime a Stay Order was issued by the RTC Branch 158 on August 2, 2001 which specifically forbids the “enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against CIPI, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable to it." In view of this development, this Court finds that respondent judge acted properly when he granted CIPI's motion to suspend the implementation of the June 20, 2001 Order.

Jurisprudence is indeed replete with rulings where the Supreme Court held that when a corporation is placed under rehabilitation receivership, all actions or claims against it are deemed suspended.15 The purpose of the suspension is to prevent the irreversible collapse of the corporation and give the management committee or receiver the absolute tranquility to study the viability of the corporation. The law creates a wall around the distressed corporation against all claims. In the cases of BF Homes Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals, et al.16 and Roa vs. Court of Appeals 17. The Supreme Court clarified that when a corporation threatened by bankruptcy is taken over by a receiver, all creditors should stand on an equal footing; not anyone of them should be given any preference by paying one or some of them ahead of the others.

15 Bank of the Philippine islands vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 97178, January 10, 1994 16 G.R. No. 76879, October 3, 1990 17 G.R. No. 77143, October 3, 1990

The implementation of the June 20, 2001 Order which enumerates the modifications of IFSC approved rehabilitation plan, is a claim as defined under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. Rule 2, Section 1 of the Interim Rules defines a claim as referring to all claims or demands of whatever nature of character against a debtor or its property, whether for money or otherwise. Said definition is all encompassing as it refers to all actions whether for money or otherwise. There are no distinctions or exemptions.

said Order should be suspended upon the Accordingly, the implementation of the approval of the rehabilitation plan and the appointment of CIPI's rehabilitation receiver. To permit the implementation thereof against CIPI would give undue preference to IFSC over the other creditors and claimants of said private respondent which is precisely the vice sought to be prevented by Section 6 (c) of PD 902-A. It must be noted that even the execution of final judgments may be held in abeyance when a corporation is under rehabilitation.18 A stay of execution may be warranted by the fact that a corporation has been placed under rehabilitation receivership.

We agree with the ruling of respondent judge that the subsequent filing by private respondent CIPI of a petition for voluntary insolvency on February 26, 2002 and its being declared as insolvent on March 8, 2002 after the dismissal of its petition for rehabilitation on February 11, 2002, had provided sufficient ground to further suspend the implementation of the June 20, 2001 Order. Under Sec. 18 of the Insolvency Law19, upon the filing of the petition, the court, as a matter of course shall issue an order declaring the petitioning debtor insolvent and the effects of such order are the following:

1. All the assets of the debtor not exempt from execution are taken possession of by the sheriff until the appointment of receiver or assignee;

18 Sps. Eduardo Sobrejuanite and Fidela Sobrejuanite vs. ASB Development Corporation, G.R. No. 165675, September 30, 2005

19 Act No. 1956, as amended

2. The payment to the debtor of any debts due to him and the delivery to the debtor of to any person for him of any property belonging to him and the transfer of any property by him are forbidden; and

3. All civil proceedings pending against the insolvent debtor shall be stayed.

This Court finds that certiorari will not lie the instant case.

Rule 65, Sections 1 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure provides:

Petition for certiorari - When any tribunal, board of officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its or his jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.

jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough. It must be grave abuse of discretion as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and so gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.21

The case at bar discloses no appreciable indication that public respondent capriciously exercised his judgment or that he exercised his power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal animosity nor did it overstep its authority. It appears that Honorable Judge Briccio Ygana acted within the bounds of his discretion when he ruled to suspend the enforcement of the June 20, 2001 Order against private respondent CIPI. Moreover, petitioner has not shown any compelling justification to warrant a reversal of the findings of the respondent judge. As defined, discretion is a faculty of a court or an official by which he may decide a question either way, and still be right.22

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Cost against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Villarama, Jr., and Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Plain it is from a reading of the foregoing provision that certiorari can be invoked only for an error of jurisdiction, that is, one where the act complained of was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction. In fine, certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction - it is not a remedy to correct errors of judgment. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court or quasi-judicial body in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings, and its conclusions of law.20 Truly, certiorari under Rule 65 is a remedy narrow in scope and inflexible in character. It is not a general utility tool in the legal assigned to the writer of the opinion of the

workshop.

By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgement as is equivalent to lack of

20 Suyat, Jr. vs. Torres, 441 SCRA 265

Petition dismissed.

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was

Court.

(SGD.) MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice Chairman, Seventh Division

21 Information Technology Foundation of the Phils. vs. COMELEC, GR No. 159139, January 13, 2004 22 Gu Uan, et al vs. Galang, 12 SCRA 580

To

MGA ALITUNTUNIN KAGAWARAN, KAWANIHAN AT TANGGAPAN AT MGA KAUTUSANG PAMPANGASIWAAN [DEPARTMENT, BUREAU AND OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND REGULATIONS]

Department of Budget and Management

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND

MANAGEMENT

MALACAÑANG, MANILA

CIRCULAR Letter No. 2008-11 December 8, 2008

: HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS/AGENCIES/ STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES AND OTHER OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT; BUDGET OFFICERS; HEAD OF ACCOUNTING UNITS; HEADS OF MODIFIED DISBURSEMENT SYSTEMGOVERNMENT SERVICING BANKS (MDSGSB), AND ALL OTHERS CONCERNED

SUBJECT: GUIDELINES IN THE RELEASE OF NOTICE OF CASH ALLOCATION (NCA) FOR FY 2009

1.0 Purpose

1.1 To strengthen cash programming on the part of agencies thereby ensuring resource predictability in the payment of goods and services delivered; and,

1.2 To simplify the procedures in the release of NCAS for regular operating requirements of agencies.

2.0 Coverage

This circular shall cover the following: 2.1 NCA releases for regular

operating requirements of all national government agencies including SUCs which are credited to their Regular MDS Accounts under the General Fund (101), Foreign-Assisted Projects (FAPs) and Special Accounts in the General Fund (SAGFS).

2.2 NCA releases for assistance to government owned/or controlled

[blocks in formation]

government units which are released thru the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) and Department of Budget and Management (DBM), respectively.

3.0 General Guidelines

3.1 Effective January 2009, the following modifications in the NCA release shall be adopted:

3.1.1 NCAS to cover regular requirements of agencies under items 2.0 of this Circular shall be comprehensively released, with a breakdown of the monthly NCA requirements by operating unit or OU. (An operating units refers to the "agency" receiving NCA directly from DBM). Basis for the comprehensive release shall be the Monthly Cash Program (MCP) submitted by the OUS. The MCP, a budget execution document, reflects the monthly disbursement requirements of OUS.

OUS shall prepare a realistic MCP for the implementation of their programs and projects, taking into consideration the seasonality (peak and slack times) of activities, scheduled work targets of Capital Outlays, and timing of the grant of Productivity Incentive Benefit, Uniform Allowance, Year-end Benefits and other similar items of expenditures.

3.1.2 Additional NCAs shall be

released corresponding to the SAROS to be issued to the OUS. These additional NCAs shall be issued on the basis of the separate MCPs submitted by the US as supporting document to their special budget requests for release of SAROS.

3.1.3 All NCAS programmed and credited for the month whether part of the comprehensive release or constituting the additional NCA releases, shall be valid only until the last working day of the said month. Thus, any unutilized NCA corresponding to the book balance (i.e., net of outstanding checks) shall automatically lapse at the end of that month.

3.1.4 DBM shall provides the MDS-GSB and OU concerned, a monthly schedule of the NCA release i.e., monthly NCA requirements of OUS.

3.1.5 Upon receipt of the NCAs, the MDS-GSB shall ensure that the amount programmed for the month, if there is any, shall be credited immediately to the Regular MDS Accounts of OUS. Thereafter, the NCA requirements for the subsequent months shall be credited on the first working day of the month consistent with the schedule to be provided by DPM as cited under item 3.1.4 above.

3. 2 Pending approved of the GAA for the year, the DBM in coordination with the OUS, shall prepare a tentative cash program which shall serves as basis for the

050774 -3

release of the initial NCA covering the first semester (January to June) requirements of each OU. The total tentative cash program for the first semester should be more or less equal to the programmed allotment for the same period.

3.3 Likewise, at the start of the year, OUS may submit to DBM a request for the release of NCA requirements chargeable against prior year's budget, as follows:

3.3.1 Balances of allotments as of end of the immediately preceding year which are still valid for obligation in the current year. The request shall be supported with the MCP for the purpose and copy of the last page of the Registries of Allotments and Obligations for MOOE and CO showing such Continuing Appropriations prepared by the Budget Officer.

3.3.2 Commitments or obligations which are not yet due and demandable as of end of the immediately preceding year for which, goods and services are expected to be delivered during the current year or future years. The request shall be supported with the MCP for the purpose and List of Not Yet Due and Demandable Obligations as of end of the immediately preceding year (prescribed under Circular Letter No. 2004-2 dated January 26, 2004), reflecting the estimated period when said obligations would be recognized as A/Ps. The total NCA requirements per MCP shall correspond to the total prior years' obligations which will become due and demand

« AnteriorContinuar »