Pryce Corporation Vs China Bank

Pryce Corporation vs.
China Banking Corporation

G.R. No. 172302, 18 February 2014, En Banc (Leonen, J.)
Facts:
A petition for corporate rehabilitation filed by petitioner Pryce Corporation on July 9, 2004 with the
Regional Trial Court of Makati. The rehabilitation court found the petition sufficient in form and
substance and issued a stay order on July 13, 2004 appointing Gener T. Mendoza as rehabilitation
receiver.
Mendoza as receiver, he was directed to evaluate and give recommendations on Pryce Corporations
proposed rehabilitation plan. Having denied the same, he submitted an amended rehabilitation plan which
the Court approved.
China Banking Corporation and Bank of the Philippine Islands, both creditors of Pryce Corporation,
opposed the approval of the said rehabilitation plan. They cited that such plan violates the nonimpairment clause and mutuality of contracts. However, the Rehabilitation Court still confirmed the
rehabilitation plan.
China Bank and BPI filed their separate appeals. In China Banks case, the decision of the rehabilitation
court was reversed and set aside. However, in BPIs case, the decision of the rehabilitation court was
sustained and affirmed.
Pryce Corporation also appealed to this court assailing the granting respondent China Banking
Corporations petition. Pryce Corporation argues that the issue on the validity of the rehabilitation court
orders is now res judicata. Petitioner Pryce Corporation submits that the ruling in BPI v. Pryce
Corporation contradicts the present case, and it has rendered the issue on the validity and regularity of the
rehabilitation court orders as res judicata.
Second, petitioner Pryce Corporation contends that Rule 4, Section 6 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on
Corporate Rehabilitation does not require the rehabilitation court to hold a hearing before issuing a stay
order.
Issue:
Whether or not a hearing is needed prior to the issuance of a stay order in corporate rehabilitation
proceedings
Ruling:
Petition GRANTED.
Nowhere in the Interim Rules does it require a comprehensive discussion in the stay order on the courts
findings of sufficiency in form and substance.
The stay order and appointment of a rehabilitation receiver dated July 13, 2004 is an "extraordinary,
preliminary, ex parte remed[y]."The effectivity period of a stay order is only "from the date of its issuance
until dismissal of the petition or termination of the rehabilitation proceedings." It is not a final disposition
of the case. It is an interlocutory order defined as one that "does not finally dispose of the case, and does
not end the Courts task of adjudicating the parties contentions and determining their rights and liabilities
as regards each other, but obviously indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court."
Thus, it is not covered by the requirement under the Constitution that a decision must include a discussion
of the facts and laws on which it is based.
Neither does the Interim Rules require a hearing before the issuance of a stay order. What it requires is an
initial hearing before it can give due course to or dismiss a petition.
Nevertheless, while the Interim Rules does not require the holding of a hearing before the issuance of a
stay order, neither does it prohibit the holding of one. Thus, the trial court has ample discretion to call a
hearing when it is not confident that the allegations in the petition are sufficient in form and substance, for
so long as this hearing is held within the five (5)-day period from the filing of the petition the period
within which a stay order may issue as provided in the Interim Rules.
One of the important objectives of the Interim Rules is "to promote a speedy disposition of corporate
rehabilitation cases[,] x x x apparent from the strict time frames, the non-adversarial nature of the
proceedings, and the prohibition of certain kinds of pleadings."
It is in light of this objective that a court with basis to issue a stay order must do so not later than five (5)
days from the date the petition was filed

Pryce Corporation Vs China Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pryce Corporation Vs China Bank

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pryce Corporation Vs China Bank

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pryce Corporation vs.

China Banking Corporation

You might also like