Scribd
Upload
182 views

PNB Vs CA 2009

The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Philippine Airlines' motion to suspend proceedings in a design infringement case despite an order from the Securities and Exchange Commission appointing an interim receiver for PAL and suspending all claims against the company during its rehabilitation. Under corporate rehabilitation rules, all actions against the corporation, in whatever stage, are automatically suspended. The proceedings before the trial court were also not yet terminated by the appeal to the Court of Appeals and could thus be suspended. The Court of Appeals should have suspended the appeal upon notification of the SEC's stay order.

Uploaded by

Lindsay Mills
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
182 views

PNB Vs CA 2009

The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Philippine Airlines' motion to suspend proceedings in a design infringement case despite an order from the Securities and Exchange Commission appointing an interim receiver for PAL and suspending all claims against the company during its rehabilitation. Under corporate rehabilitation rules, all actions against the corporation, in whatever stage, are automatically suspended. The proceedings before the trial court were also not yet terminated by the appeal to the Court of Appeals and could thus be suspended. The Court of Appeals should have suspended the appeal upon notification of the SEC's stay order.

Uploaded by

Lindsay Mills
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

150592

January 20, 2009

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and SABINE


KOSCHINGER,* Respondents.
FACTS: Respondent Sabine Koschinger (Koschinger) filed a complaint for design
infringement and damages against petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Koschinger claimed PAL used table linens and
placemats bearing designs substantially identical to her patented designs in its commercial
flights without her consent or authority.
The trial court rendered its Decision on July 15, 1998 in favor of Koschinger. PAL appealed
the same to the CA.
Meanwhile, on June 23, 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) gave due
course to PALs petition for the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver due to its being a
distressed company, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 902-A. On July 1, 1998, the SEC
directed that "[i]n light of the Order of the Commission appointing an Interim Receiver all
claims for payment against PAL are deemed suspended."
On August 3, 1998, PAL filed before the RTC a Motion for Suspension of Proceedings.
However, when the RTC failed to act upon the motion, PAL filed before the CA a Reiteration
of Motion to Suspend Proceedings on May 29, 2000.
On September 4, 2001, the CA issued its assailed Resolution, holding that holding that the
"proceedings below could no longer be stopped because it had been terminated" and
ordering Koschinger to file her appellees brief. It also held that proceedings could no longer
be stopped because it had terminated.
ISSUE: Whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in issuing the disputed resolution. (As to actions against coporation
under rehabilitation suspended by the Stay Order at whatever stage)
HELD: we find that the CA indeed committed grave abuse of discretion for the reasons cited
below.
Of paramount importance to the resolution of this case is the effect of the order for
suspension of payments on the proceedings before the trial court and on PALs appeal
before the CA.
Under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, a claim shall include all
claims or demands of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property, whether
for money or otherwise.
The definition is all-encompassing as it refers to all actions whether for money or otherwise.
There are no distinctions or exemptions.

In subsequent cases, the Court pronounced that "[it] is not prepared to depart from the wellestablished doctrines essentially maintaining that all actions for claims against a
corporation pending before any court, tribunal or board shall ipso jure be suspended in
whatever stage such actions may be found upon the appointment by the SEC of a
management committee or a rehabilitation receiver."
Further, this was taken to embrace all phases of the suit, be it before the trial court or any
tribunal or before this Court such that "no other action may be taken in, including the
rendition of judgment during the state of suspension what are automatically stayed or
suspended are the proceedings of an action or suit and not just the payment of claims
during the execution stage after the case had become final and executory."
The reason for the suspension of claims while the corporation undergoes rehabilitation
proceedings has been explained by the Court, thus:
In light of these powers, the reason for suspending actions for claims against the
corporation should not be difficult to discover. It is not really to enable the management
committee or the rehabilitation receiver to substitute the defendant in any pending action
against it before any court, tribunal, board or body. Obviously, the real justification is to
enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his
powers free from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might unduly hinder or
prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company. To allow such other action to continue would
only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time,
effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of
being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.
It was likewise error for the CA to have ruled that the proceedings before the RTC could not
be stopped because they had been terminated.
This Court has repeatedly held that execution is the final stage of litigation, the fruit and end
of the suit. Thus, the proceedings before the RTC were not terminated by the filing of the
appeal to the CA. The same could not be executed hence, not yet terminated until the
appeal is decided with finality. Consequently, the proceedings before the RTC could be
suspended in accordance with the SECs stay order.
Under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, a stay order defers all
actions or claims against the corporation seeking rehabilitation from the date of its issuance
until the dismissal of the petition or termination of the rehabilitation proceedings. 22
Accordingly, the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners Motion to
Suspend Proceedings and ordering respondent to file her appellees brief. Upon petitioners
motion informing it of the SECs stay order, the CA should have immediately suspended the
appeal therein.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the petition is GRANTED.

You might also like