P. 1
Queensland vs. George

Queensland vs. George

|Views: 4|Likes:
Published by Pursha Monte Cara
commercial
commercial

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Pursha Monte Cara on Jul 12, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/12/2013

pdf

text

original

Republic of the Philippines Supreme Court Manila

THIRD DIVISION

KEI MARIE and BIANCA ANGELICA, all surnamed ABRERA, minors and represented by their parent EVELYN C. ABRERA; ASTRID NOELLE S. ALMEDA, minor, represented by his parent MA. ROMINA FRANCHESCA S. ALMEDA; JOHN KENNETH P. ANDALIS, minor, represented by his parent ELSA P. ANDALIS; RONALD B. ANG, minor, represented by his parent MA. JUDY B. ANG; MARIEL ANGELES, minor, represented by her parent ENRIQUE E. ANGELES; JEREMIAH M. ANTONIO, minor, represented by his parent ELSA M. ANTONIO; LESTER C. ARAO, minor, represented by his parent ROSALINA C. ARAO; MA. LIRIO A. AROMIN, minor, represented by his parent FREDERICK A. AROMIN; ELDY S. AZURIN, minor, represented by her parent ELSA S. AZURIN;

G.R. No. 171681

MARION JANINE J. AZURIN, minor, represented by her parent MA. THERESA J. AZURIN; PIOLO MIGUEL G. BARLETA, minor, represented by his parent HENRY LUIS E. BARLETA; VIANCA SOPHIA, VINCE PATRICK and VOLTAIRE BYRONE, all surnamed BASAS, minors, and respresented by their parents NERIO and MARIBEL D. BASAS; LAWRENCE CARLOS and LUIS PAULO, all surnamed BATAC, minors, and represented by their parent RAQUEL C. BATAC; DARREL L. BAUTISTA, minor, represented by his parent NILDA L. BAUTISTA; JUAN CARLOS and MARIA ANGELA, all surnamed BAUZA, minors, and represented by their parent NESTOR A. BAUZA; MARK GERALD and LUIGI, all surnamed BENTULAN, minors, and represented by their parent FLORENCIO M. BENTULAN; PIERRE ANGELI M. BLASCO, minor, represented by her parent NARDA A. BLASCO; SARAH CATHERINE A. CABACES, minor, represented by her parent LUZ A. CABACES; KIRK ANTHONY and JOHN MICHAEL, all surnamed CAMUS, minors, represented by their parent MABEL B. CAMUS; PRECIOUS JOY V. CAPISTRANO, minor, represented by her parent JOSEPH F. CAPISTRANO; SHELLAH MAE P. CARINO,

minor, represented by her parent RUPERTO L. CARINO; JOHN LAWRENCE A. CATAN, minor, represented by his parent BERNARDINO O. CATAN, JR.; CZARINA ROSE S. CHAN, minor, represented by her parent LUCILA S. CHAN; ANTHONY S. CHAN, minor, represented by his parent WILLY L. CHAN; ADRIAN CHRISTIAN S. CHUA, minor, represented by his parent VINSON G. CHUA; CHRISTOFFER RYAN and CARL BENEDICT, all surnamed CHUA, minors, represented by their parent EDGARDO A. CHUA; SHIELA CERNIAS, minor, represented by her parent YOLANDA CERNIAS; GENE LOUISE B. COMENDADOR, minor, represented by his parent HERMOGENES A. COMENDADOR; JOHN KENNETH and MICHAEL ANGELO, all surnamed CRUZ, minors, and represented by their parent AIDA L. CRUZ; WENDELL JAKE D. CRUZ, minor, represented by his parent EDWIN I. CRUZ; SYMON GABRIEL M. DAVID, minor, represented by his parent ARSENIO P. DAVID; JENNILYN M. DE JESUS, minor, represented by her parent MARCIAL S. DE JESUS; DYLEEN MAY M. DELA ROSA, minor, represented by her parent ANALEN M. DELA ROSA; MA. ANGELIKA B. DELA ROSA,

minor, represented by her parent ROMULO R. DELA ROSA; MARK KEVIN H. DELA TORRE, minor, represented by his parent LEONORA H. DELA TORRE; ALVIN MERCK C. DE LEON, minor, represented by his parent MERCEDITA C. DE LEON; RICHARD ANTHONY B. DELIZO, minor, represented by his parent RICHMOND JOHN DELIZO; REYNOLD JOHN A. DEMIN, minor, represented by his parents MERLIN and HERNANDO A. DEMIN; MIRCO M. DESPABELADERA, minor, represented by his parent ELINITA M. DESPABELADERA; CARLO D. DIALA, minor, represented by his parent LEONOR D. DIALA; PATRICK JEROME and FRANCIS, all surnamed DIAZ, minors, represented by their parents ESMERALDO and CARMENCITA DIAZ; HILTELYN C. DOMINGUIANO, minor, represented by her parent HILTON D. DOMINGUIANO; ROGIELYN G. EBETO, minor, represented by his parent ROGER R. EBETO; ERIN and EINRE, all surnamed ERMINO, minors, and represented by their parent EVA H. ERMINO; ARRON LEVIN G. ESGUERRA, minor, represented by his parent RICHARD MARTIN G. ESGUERRA; MA. ANGELICA GRACIA C. ESTRADA, minor, represented by her parent

.. KIM ARRIZA P. GALLARDO. FERNANDEZ. GABRIEL. minors. JR. GONZALES. JOSEPHINE V. FEDERICO C. represented by his parent ENELIA D. minor. HENSON. GOLONG.CHARITA C. represented by his parent DALIA C. FAUSTINO. all surnamed GEPULLANO. GAVIOLA. represented by her parent GRIZELA N. all surnamed IGNACIO. FAITH and CHARITY. JR. C JAY and ELAINE JOY. minor. minors. MARY KAYCY N. all surnamed GABRIEL. GALLARDO. GAHUMAN. and represented by their parent FE G. HANS CHRISTIAN C. MIA RUTH M. represented by her parent MERCEDITA G. minor. . minors. minor. FERNANDEZ. minors. minor. represented by his parent BENSON C. GONZALES. minor. all surnamed GAHUMAN. JORGE. EFFIE FIELLE and GIUSEPPE LORENZO. MARIEL CARLA and JONALYN. represented by her parent MILAGROS M. PASTRANA. GAVIOLA. ESTRADA. and represented by their parent MANUELA A. minor. minor. FAUSTINO. GOLONG. and represented by their parents JOSEPHINE and CASTOR V. GEPULLANO. and represented by their parent GEMMA M. JOEL ROY D. IGNACIO. DALRU MARPIN C. represented by his parent SALVACION C.

represented by her parent BENJAMIN A. minor. all surnamed LOPEZ. MACHICA. DHAN COLINS. MARQUEZ. MARY JUDE C. MARQUEZ. JR. minor. minor. CHRISTINE ALYSSA A. LOMARDA. SR. MADRID. MARQUEZ. all surnamed MADRIAGA. represented by his parent. minor. represented by her parent BERNARDO T. KRISTEL CANE A.. MARQUEZ. minors. IVAN GERARD . minors. JORGE. MARTINEZ. minor. MACHICA. MABBORANG.represented by her parent ELEUTERIO C. MADRIAGA. represented by ESPERANZA M. CHRYL BHEFER M. MARTINEZ. MARTINEZ. LIANA. FEDERICO S. minors. MA. JERLIN and JERUSALEM. LOMARDA. represented by her parent DAISY J. MARTINEZ. MARQUEZ.. NERSON and NERIEL. minor. JESSICA J. JR. LOPEZ. represented by their parents MERCELITA and DANIEL T.. MADRID II. MOISES M. minor represented by her parent CARMELITA P. and represented by their parent NOEL B. MARIA VIRGINIA and RIZALDY. and represented by their parents MERLINDA and JERUSALEM P. represented by her parent FILOMENA A. OSCAR R. minor. MARQUEZ. represented by his parent ROSE R. CATHLEEN R. all surnamed MABBORANG.

JACOB YSRAEL C. ONG. OCAMPO. NG. JOHN MARVIN and JOHN MICHAEL. and represented by their parents NORMA and RODEL P. and represented by their parent ROLANDO P. all surnamed OLANDAY. represented by his parent ELY O. minor. MENDOZA. minors. minor. represented by his parent LILIAN G. JERIEL JAMES S. MUNCAL. minor. all surnamed MENDOZA.G. OCAMPO. KERVIN M. MARY JOYCE O. and represented by their parent LOLITA C. NUCUM. MARIA ANA and ANGELO LEO. MORALES. minor. NG. MONTEVERDE. OLANDAY. rerepsented by her parent PEPITO . NORADA. DADOR and KRIZIA ARRA G. PHOEBE GAYLE Y. represented by his parent JAIME RAMON J. minors. and represented by their parents LILIBETH and OSCAR U. minor. represented by his parent EMILY R. minor. represented by his parent JESUS V. CHRISTIAN PAULO O. MASILUNGAN. MASILUNGAN. MUNCAL. minors. MUYA. KENNETH R. NUCUM. minors. all surnamed NORADA. JOHN ADRIAN M. minor. MONTEVERDE. minor. MUYA. MORALES. represented by her parent MANUELITO C. represented by his parent MARIA VICI C. MONA JAMYLA and KARLA VENICE.

TERESA B. JELYNNE and JENNIFER. MARY ANN M. QUIJANO. PRADO. PHILLIP JOBILL. PARANE. ONG. minor. ORIBIANA. PEREZ. and represented by their parent MILA S. PERALTA. minor. minors. PATRICK JOHN C. QUINIT. minors. represented by her parent ARNELSON R. RABIT. PINEDA. QUIJANO. MARTIN JOHN and MARC JASON. represented by her parent VIRGILIO C. JUSTIN GODFRED B. SHAYNE ANNE and SHEENA APRIL. RAMON MIGUEL C. minor. PRADO. represented by his parent MA. minors. minor. represented by their parent EDEN A. PHILLIP JULIUS. ORTEGA. AIDA F. minor. minor. represented by his parents MA. PERALTA. and represented by their parents MYRNA and JOSE JERRY G. SERRANO.C. PINEDA. PEREZ. represented by her parent VIRGILIO L. . represented by his parent MELINA C. ERIKA R. LAARNI YVETTE M. ORTEGA. SABANGAN. all surnamed ORIBIANA. all surnamed REYES. all surnamed PAYUYO. RAY BERNARD and REYNEDEN. all surnamed PARANE and HAYLEY G. all surnamed RABIT. minor. and represented by their parent and guardian ANNABELLE G. JOSEPH DAVID Q. represented by his parent ROSILYN C. minors. PAYUYO.

. SANTOS. KATHRYN A. SACLOLO. FRANZ HENDRIX FELIX G. SALCEDO. SUMULONG. SACLOLO. minor. ROCABERTE. SINOHIN. minors. minor. represented by his parent RIZALITA E. represented by their parent FRANCISCO M. represented by his parent JOSE MARCIAL P. CHRISTOPHER NEIL B. SY. minor. represented by her parent FRANCISCO S. all surnamed SUMULONG. represented by his parent ROXANIETTE G. TIU.minors. and represented by their parents FE and JUANITO G. SINOHIN. ROMERO. MARK ANTHONY E. minor. LANCE MICHAEL S. represented by his parent ANITA F. represented by his parent ESTRELLA T. EDRIANE JAMES E. PAULA KATE ROCABERTE. JOSEPH MAR G. minor. KIM ANDREW D. SALCEDO. SANTOS. minor. TALAG. DAVID T. minor. minor. represented by his parents DOLORES and MAMERTO M. minor. FRANCIS ADRIAN and FRANCIS DAVID. represented by his parent ROBERTO C. SEAN LAWRENCE A. represented by her parent MA. ROMERO. SANTOS. minor. JR. represented by his parent ERLANI S. TAMPO. TAMPO. JOHN EDWARD F. minor. SY. represented by his parent . SANTOS. TALAG. REYES.

represented by her parent EDNA A. all surnamed ACIELO. ABRERA. VALENZUELA. VARGAS. minors. MYSTICA R. represented by her parent VILMA VERGARA. JOHN JASPER C. JULIAN BERNARDO FERICO TORRALBA. DIANE V. minor. VICEDO. minor. minor. ROWAME LAR. VILLALON. represented by her guardian FE LILIA M. ZAPANTA. VALENZUELA. VICEDO. minor. VINA. all surnamed VILLALON. WAJE. represented by his parent EVELYN C. TIU. DING BERNALD and KAMILLE SHANE. TORRALBA. . AILEEN and ALLAN. and represented by their parent ZOILA M. REGINE A. VERGARA. all surnamed WAJE. minors. KRISTINE RAY O. VILLAREAL. ERMINDA A. ZAPANTA. MERRY GRACE and MIZZAH-MYRRH. JEANAFE ABELARDE. JENAVEE A.GIRLIELYN S. KRISTOFER LORENZ J. represented by his parent ANITA P. represented by her parent MA. BILLY JOE P. represented by his parent CESAR M. represented by his parent FEDERICO C. VILLAREAL. VINA. and represented by their parent MYRNA M. minor. represented by her parent CRISTINA O. ABRERA. ABELARDE. minor. VARGAS. represented by her parent ROSA R. minor.

ANTONIO A. ALCANTARA. represented by his parent JOSE L. represented by her parent ANDRES P. represented by his parent MA. MARK DAVE. BENIG. ANTONIO. represented by his parent EDUARDO E. AZURIN. represented by their guardian/parents MYRNA and ORESTE P. AZURIN. ANTONIO. BAETA. THERESA J. BALTAZAR. SR. BAETA. represented by her parent GERMELYN GRACE K. BANOGON. MARK JEREMIAH J.represented by their parent ALBERTO P. ELINOR JOY J. OLIVE MARIE. represented by their . ROSALITA B. all surnamed BERMUDEZ. BANOGON. JOSUELLE A. SYDNEY ADRIANE C. repesented by her parent LILLOSA B. LEO A. BAUTISTA.. represented by her parent ALICIA A. ROSIELYN and REMILYN. BALOD. represented by his parent ESTER S. JAYZON S. BALOD. BAUTISTA. BENIG. represented by her parent MAXIMA C. DESIREE CLARRISSE K. ADAMSON S. SHARYLEN C. ARANZASO. ALCANTARA. represented by her parent TERESITA J. BARLIN. JAYR B. ACIELO. ADANZA. AGUILAR. MARJORIE. ARANZASO. BALACUIT. AGUILAR. JOSEL AMOR E. BARLIN. represented by his parent ADAM Q. all surnamed ADANZA and LUIS EDISON RANA.

BERMUDEZ. represented by her parent MA. . represented by her parent CRISTINA S. represented by her parent HENRY T. represented by her parent MERLINDA C. MARIA VICTORIA B. EVA CAMERO. EZRA P. represented by her parent JOSEPH G. DOMINADOR D. JANINA S. represented by his parent WILLY CHAN. represented by his parent MEDENCIA A. CANLAS. CIPRIANO. CARLOS. JOSEFINA Z. represented by his parent ARMANDO L. CAMACHO. CONCEPCION. represented by her parent ROMULO T. RHENY FRANCES F. CARLOS. CAMERO. CRUZ. CREUS. JASON CARLO U. JOELIE LELAINE D. CANLAS. CANLAS. BERNAL. DENNIS ANGELO C. represented by her guardian JEMMA G. CATIMBANG. BOCAR. DALANGIN.parent MARINA C. ELLAN MARIE P. represented by her parent MARIZA P. VISAMINDA Z. ARVILYNNE L. ACE PAREJA CHUMACERA. CONCEPCION. BUSTOS. represented by his parent YOLANDA PAREJA CHUMACERA. CANLAS. CHAN. CREUS. CIPRIANO. CATIMBANG. BUSTOS. MARK SHERWIN A. JEAN CARLO BUENO. BOCAR. IMELDA V. represented by his parent FEDERICO A. CARLOS. TERRADO. JUDITH L. ADDISON S.

GO. all surnamed DE JESUS. DIVINAGRACIA. JIMMY and JOANNE MARIE. represented by his parent CEFERINO S. DE JESUS. DENNIS and KATHRYN. FERNANDO. DIZON. represented by her guardian . ROBERTO NEIL DIZON. DIMDIMAN. ARMAND ARNEL MILLAN T. represented by her parent EUSEBIA B. DELIZO. CATHERINE DONES. RHODA PIA B. represented by their parent ESTELLA P. all surnamed FRIAS. FRIAS. represented by his parent ESMERALDO G. represented by their parent MIRIAM MARGARETTE M. represented by their parent MARCIAL S. RAYES. FERNANDO. DONES. JUNALIN B.represented by her parent EVA L. DIVINAGRACIA. represented by his parent MARIETTA T. RUEL A. FRANCIS J. DIAZ. MEDYLEN P. all surnamed GO. VICTORIA R. represented by her parent MA. SHERYL BUDIONGAN ESQUILLA. DIMDIMAN. AQUINO. represented by her parent DANILO D. represented by his parent REMEDIOS C. represented by his parent ROBERTO V. GALANG. represented by her parent TERESITA L. ESQUILLA. GALANG. RYAN and RICHARD. DALANGIN. RANIER SAN JOSE DEL ROSARIO. DEL ROSARIO. KATRINA GRACE R. DIAZ.

GOLONG. ICABANDI. HERNANDEZ. INGALLA. JOVES. represented by her parent EDNA L. LOURDES JOY and ERIK MARKUS. DANICA MAE M. IBANEZ. represented by his parent EDUARDO I. represented by their guardian CECILIA C. LUBBERTS. LALATA. HANS CHRISTIAN C. LALATA. represented by his parent MILAGROS M. GUIANG. represented by her parent CORAZON R. GONZALES. SHALIMAR S. IBARRA.SUSANA B. GOLONG. KATHERINE and JULIE ANN. MARK TIMOTHY A. JOSEPHINE S. represented by their parent NORMAN HERNAL. EDISON O. IBANEZ. represented by her parent BRENDA M. LAWRENCE CHRISTIAN LAM. represented by his parent LADISLAO I. all surnamed CABALLA. ICABANDI. . represented by his parent MARY CLAIR A. KRISTINE GONZALES. represented by his parent MARIO G. JOMARI M. DANILO IDOS. all surnamed HERNAL. CARLO MIGUEL A. ANNA CAMILLE R. JUMANOG. represented by his parent MILA DE LEON LAM. GOLOCINO. JAVILINAR. HERNANDEZ. IBARRA. VICTORIA P. INGALLA. RACHEL JOY M. JAVILINAR. AGNES L. represented by his parent BENSON C.

MASILUNGAN.. all surnamed MUYA. MABBORANG. ADAM LESTER E. GRACE. represented by their parent EMILY R. IDA . MAYO. CHIARA A. NATHANIEL and MARVIN NOEL. all surnamed MIRASOL. JR. RIA and RUBY. represented by his parent MARISSA E. MARASIGAN.MABBORANG. ERIC and MICHAEL. MARTINEZ. represented by his parent MA. IVAN ISRA and EXEQUIEL. MARTINEZ.. MENESES. KATRINA M. represented by their parent LUCAS L. represented by his parent LETICIA L. MARQUEZ. MANALANG. MANALANG. MURILLO. KENO A. MARASIGAN. MARQUEZ. ROBERTO JOSHUE and JOSEPH. all surnamed MASILUNGAN. MISA. MISA. represented by her parent FEDERICO T. EMMANUEL L. MALAZARTE. represented by his parent DAISY J. JR. MIRASOL. CLARA A. MENDEZ. represented by their parent NERISSA T. MUYA. represented by her parent EUFROSINA A. represented by her parent DANIEL T. all surnamed MALAZARTE. all surnamed MURILLO. represented by their parent MARILOU S. RICHARD J. represented by their parent LILIAN G. ROSE E. MA. MENDEZ. LIGAYA J.

ORTIZ. represented by their parent ANGELES L. OPULENCIA. represented by their parent MEDALLA T. represented by her parent JOSE JERRY G. PATERNO. NECIA. AUSTIN RAINER M. JOSE CONRADO T. represented by her parent JESUS V. ORIBIANA. represented by their parents ARCELI and . DIANA and CARMELA. MERCADO. represented by his parent REBECCA T. KATHLEEN KAY and RUFFA. all surnamed POBOCAN. NG. POBOCAN. OCAMPO. MA. OLIMAN. PATERNO. represented by her parent ANTONIO S. FRANCISCO and ANGELICA. all surnamed OLIMAN. DOM DANIEL M. OROPILLA. NG. ORIBIANA. OROPILLA. all surnamed PRADO. ANN FRANCIS M. represented by her parent GLORIA M. represented by his parent PRISCILLA S. JETHRO FRANCIS S. NOVENCIDO. NECIA. OCAMPO. represented by his parent TSG. PEREZ. PETER K. PALENCIA. represented by his parent FE M. RONA M. represented by her parent ROBERTO P. JESSICA MAE G. OLIVERA. RAYMOND JOSEPH R. ORTIZ. JOHN PETER PALENCIA. PEREZ.AYESAW. OPULENCIA. MARY ANN G. KATRINA M. represented by her guardian CYNTHIA M. represented by his parent MYRNA M.

RAMOS. . CRISTINA PAULA A. RICARDO R.VIRGILIO C. RUBIALES. PAULO and DENNIS. represented by her parent FLORDELIZA Y. RUBIALES. FELIX and SAHARA. JILLIAN ROSE L. JR.. represented by her parent LYDIA L. represented by her parent ISMAEL M. RAYNERA. all surnamed RABIT. represented by their parent ROXANIETTE G. VALERIE C. represented by her parent PURISIMA L. RAMIREZ. GIAN CARLO L. represented by his guardian NANETTE S. all surnamed ROMERO. RAMOS. PRADO. TROT ZARDOZ and GAIA KASSIOPEIA. GLENN JOSEPH R. MARISSA TESSA Y. represented by his guardian CARMEN R. RAMIREZ. RAYNERA. ARBOLEDA. SALAZAR. REDOR. ONG. GIAN FRANCIS B. represented by their parents LERMA and EDUARDO C. represented by their parent MILA S. represented by her parent DELFIN A. RAMIREZ. RABIT. ROSARIO. SALAZAR. MA. represented by his parent IRINEO B. REDOR. RAMOS. represented by his parent ELIZABETH B. SAAVEDRA. all surnamed SALCEDO. ROSARIO. PRINCESS RUTH L. ANITA S. ROMERO. RAMOS. CHRISTIAN REY G. represented by his parent VIRGILIO B. RAMOS.

represented by his . ROMMEL JOHN PAUL and ROLANDO. represented by her parent AURORA A. TWINKLE I. SANTOS. TOLENTINO. represented by her parent ASTERIA M. ANNA MICHELLE and MAY JOANNA. ROCKY and JENNIFER. all surnamed SUMULONG. TALOSIG. JOHN RUSSELL I. TAN. MA. SUMULONG. represented by his parent ELENA D. MANUEL. TIMPUG. SARMIENTO. represented by her parent DOLORES I. represented by his parent SONIA I. represented by her parent MA. represented by her parent MARISSA J. all surnamed TORRES. SANTOS. SUICO. KIM CHARLES R. TOLENTINO. KRESTA J. represented by their parent FRANCISCO M. TIMPUG. all surnamed SARDUAL. SUAREZ. CHARLENE AIKA TAN. SUICO. KATRINA M.SALCEDO. SAQUITAN. SAQUITAN. RICHARD D. SHARIEM. SUAREZ. represented by their parent DOMINGA TORRES. ELAINE TALOSIG. represented by her guardian GRACE Q. MARIA LOURDES SARMIENTO. EVELYN L. OINECA LOVE Q. KENO B. TRINIDAD. represented by her parent ENG KUI C. MA. represented by his parent JAIME A. represented by their parent JEFFERSON SARDUAL.

ORLANDO and EVELINA. all surnamed VILLAREAL. all surnamed VISPO. TICZON. JR. RAY KRISTOFFER O. represented by their parent ADELAIDA P. UMAGUING. APRIL ABIGAIL A. JOHANN and DERIKKO. VILLAROJAS. VISPO. represented by their parent EVELINA R. VILLAROXAS. all surnamed VILLANUEVA. VINAS. represented by his parent CRISTINA O. represented by their guardian NELIA G. represented by their parent CECILIA M. FREDERICK A. represented by LIBRADO D. UMAGUING. represented by her parent EDNA A. represented by their parent ANITA P. all surnamed VERGARA. NILO P. ZAPANTA. TASEI YOSHIDA and NEMUEL O. represented by their parent LYDIA VILLANUEVA. MARIE FRANCE and ANTHONY. TRINIDAD. VILLAREAL. VINAS... VALENZUELA. TICZON. DIANA RUBY and CLAIRE ANN. in their individual capacities as defrauded purchasers of policies of CAP . JR. all surnamed VICENTE. represented by her parent ZENAIDA T. VILLARUEL. VALENZUELA. represented by his parent BONIFACIO B. ZAPANTA. LIBERY ANNE A. DIANE CHRISTINE and DARLENE. VERGARA. VICENTE.parent MELCHOR S. CINDY ANNE T.

shares and for and in behalf of 780. ROMEO F.versus - HON. his in capacity as the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. Respondents.. . and COLLEGE PLAN PHILIPPINES. ASSURANCE INC. . Branch 61.603 others similarly situated. Petitioners. BARZA.

.

.

..... JR. Chairperson. 2009 x............x DECISION .. NACHURA..... VELASCO.. and PERALTA.... CHICO-NAZARIO.. J... JJ Promulgated: September 11........Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO..................

The facts are as follows: CAP was incorporated on February 14.: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging that respondent Judge Romeo F. . CAP was among the country’s top 2000 corporations. it sold open-ended educational plans which guaranteed the payment of tuition and other standard school fees to the planholder irrespective of the cost at the time of availment. The Order dated September 13. 2005 in Special Proceedings (Sp. While the Order dated December 16. Proc. it engaged in the sale of fixed value plans which guaranteed the payment of a predetermined amount to the planholder. 1980 for the purpose of engaging in the sale of pre-need educational plans. J. (CAP) to be sufficient in form and substance and stayed the enforcement of all claims against CAP. 2005 and December 16.) No. Initially. 2005 found the petition for corporate rehabilitation of the College Assurance Plan Philippines. 2005 gave due course to CAP’s petition for corporate rehabilitation. M-6144.PERALTA. Branch 61. In 1982. Later. Barza of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Orders dated September 13. Inc.

However. The case. Branch 61. M6144 staying the enforcement of all claims against CAP. thus: . Judge Barza issued an Order in Sp. 05365. and the Fil-Estate Group of Companies. six petitioners herein. 2005. No. No. Proc. presided by respondent Judge Romeo F. No. 05-365. M-6144. which was raffled to the RTC of Makati City. On September 8. 2005. docketed as Sp. Petitioners alleged that proceedings commenced in SEC Case No. Proc. 2005.It started sending its scholars to college in 1984 and saw its first batch of graduates in 1988. filed an action with the RTC of Makati City for Specific Performance and/or Annulment of Contract due to Fraud. Branch 61. Barza. together with other CAP planholders. CAP filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation. but the prayer for the appointment of a receiver and creation of a management committee was not acted upon by the RTC. Damages with Application for Receiver and/or Management Committee against CAP. its Directors and Officers. it subsequently suffered financial difficulties. On September 13. was assigned to respondent Judge Romeo Barza of the RTC of Makati City. On April 28. Return and Disgorgement of Illegal Profits. docketed as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Case.

Failure to do so will bar them from participating in the proceedings. Amorsolo Street. duties and functions faithfully and posting a bond in the amount of P100. the enforcement of all claims. H. Makati City is appointed Interim Rehabilitation Receiver of COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. is prohibited from selling. (CAP). Salcedo Village.. with address at 1407 Cityland Condominium 10 Tower 2. encumbering. a corporation with principal office address at CAP Building.. its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with it. are directed to file and serve on petitioner COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. whether for money or otherwise. INC. Marcelo. transferring. x x x x All creditors and interested parties.. INC.Before this court is a Petition for Rehabilitation filed by COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. Ayala Avenue.. against COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. cor. Copies of the petition and its annexes may be secured from the court within such time as to enable them to file their comment on or opposition to the petition to prepare for its initial hearing. As a consequence of the stay order. Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance. INC. x x x x Mr. and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise. Its suppliers of goods and services are likewise prohibited from withholding supply of goods and services in the ordinary course of business for as long as it makes payments for the services and goods supplied after the issuance of the stay order. Mamerto A. Jr. Makati City.000.V. the COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. Legaspi Village. a verified comment on or opposition to the petition with supporting affidavits and documents. including the Securities and Exchange Commission. not later than ten (10) days before the date of the initial hearing. or disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of business. is stayed. INC. CPA. He may discharge his duties and functions as such after taking his oath to perform his powers. 2005.00 to guarantee the faithful discharge of his duties and obedience to the orders of the court. . It is further prohibited from making any payment of its liabilities outstanding as of the date of the filing of this petition on September 8. Dela Costa St. INC.

000. 174. Inc. who is directed to manifest his acceptance or non-acceptance of his appointment not later than ten (10) days from receipt of this Order.3 billion in tuition fees. 2005. SO ORDERED.00. and by 2004. 780.. the effect of the Asian financial crisis on CAP’s trust fund investments. it had climbed in ranking to 146th place with a 21% share of the pre-need market. Jr. is directed to immediately serve a copy of this Order to Mr. Marcelo. Mamerto A. No. Proc. and the refusal of the SEC to renew CAP’s dealership license after its expiration in September 2004 and the . thus: For determination is the issue of whether or not the petition for corporate rehabilitation of College Assurance [Plan] Philippines.720 planholders being served.000 planholders. M6144 giving due course to the petition for rehabilitation. It was incorporated in 1980 with an initial authorized capital of P10. ten planholders. INC.490 scholars graduated. it was among the country’s top 2000 corporations. the onerous application by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the Pre-Need Uniform Chart Accounts (PNUCA) beginning in 2002.000 scholars enrolled. Judge Barza issued an Order in Sp. The petition alleges that CAP is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling pre-need educational plans. (CAP) should be given due course.000. CAP has had 110. On October 17. who are also petitioners in this case. filed an Opposition to the Rehabilitation and Motion to Exclude Planholders from Stay Order and Terminate Proceeding on the ground that planholders are not creditors as they have a trust relationship with the pre-need company.Petitioner COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES. 84. and has paid over P11. However. Within two years of starting business. 2005. it was brought to financial difficulties by reason of the policy of deregulation adopted by the Department of Education which resulted in the unbridled increase in tuition fees over the years. On December 16.

several pleadings were filed with the Court by interested parties. and in order that it may be well-guided in its final disposition of the petition. .cancellation of its permit to sell in August 2004. WHEREFORE. In support of its petition. to the court-appointed Rehabilitation Receiver who is directed to evaluate the rehabilitation plan and submit his recommendation within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof. owing in great part to a bloated yet theoretical trust fund deficit and capital deficiency reflected in its financial statements under the SEC’s Pre-Need Rules. representatives from the SEC admitted that “actuarial reserve liabilities” are not actual and present liabilities of the petitioner. The Court has carefully evaluated the Petition and the comments filed by the various parties relative thereto. During the summary hearing on November 23. the Court finds merit in the Petition sufficient to warrant its referral to the Rehabilitation Receiver for study and evaluation. including the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). and hereby resolves to give due course to the petition. and to build up the asset base and liquidity of its trust fund to cover its trust variance and meet its maturing obligations. which it has asked the SEC to re-audit in light of the essential nature of pre-need plans as investment contracts rather than insurance contracts. together with its Annexes and the comments on the Petition. Pursuant to this court’s Stay Order of September 13. the Court resolves to GIVE DUE COURSE to the petition and to REFER the same. it finds the interests of the planholder/investing public as an overriding consideration which cannot be summarily or injudiciously dismissed without a thorough evaluation by the Rehabilitation Receiver of the corporation’s chances of being restored to a successful operation and solvency if given the opportunity and considering particularly the adverse results to the planholders of a liquidation scenario as against its proposed rehabilitation under which they may possibly recover 100% of their contributions. On the basis of the allegations of the petition and the Business Development Plan. 2005. CAP has submitted an eight-year Business Development Plan under which it proposes to build up its equity and liquidity to meet projected cash requirements and eliminate any equity impairment. 2005. It is unable to service its debts as they fall due and its assets are insufficient to cover its liabilities. 2005. Even as the Court notes the substantial questions posed by the SEC and some creditors on the solvency of the corporation. by way of comment on the verified Petition dated August 23.

Proc. Having no speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. SUBJECT TO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANHOLDERS’ BENEFICIARIES. 2005 had been cited for the non-resolution of pending matters in SEC Case. and the filing of a petition for relief or a motion to dismiss or for reconsideration was prohibited.Petitioners alleged that the Stay Order dated September 13. Return and Disgorgement of Illegal Profits and Damages. CONSIDERING THAT THE TUITION FEE PAYMENTS DUE PLANHOLDERS’ BENEFICIARIES ARE FROM TRUST FUND ASSETS NOT INCLUDED IN REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS. WHETHER THE STAY ORDER AND THE ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR REHABILITATION WAS ISSUED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. M-6144 were summary and non-adversarial in nature. 05-365 for Specific Performance and/or Annulment of Contract due to Fraud. Case No. No. 3. . IT BEING PROPERTY NOT BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR. WHETHER THE STAY ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR REHABILITATION WAS ISSUED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION CONSIDERING THAT ALL THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION IS TRACEABLE FROM FUNDS COLLECTED FROM PLANHOLDERS. Petitioners averred that the proceedings in Sp. The pertinent issues raised are as follows: 1. WHETHER THE ORDER APPOINTING A REHABILITATION RECEIVER WAS ISSUED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION CONSIDERING THAT A PREVIOUS INTRACORPORATE DISPUTE WITH PRAYER FOR [THE] IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT FOR 2. they filed this petition. HENCE. 2005 and the Order dated December 16.

Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000). it must be pointed out that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is a remedy designed only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In this case. They avered .RECEIVER WAS PROCEEDINGS. it is undisputed that the RTC has jurisdiction over the petition for rehabilitation under Section 2. 2005 giving due course to CAP’s petition for rehabilitation. 2005 WAS ISSUED IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION BY NOT ACCORDING DUE RESPECT TO THE FINDINGS OF A SPECIALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY. 2005 staying enforcement of all claims against CAP and the Order dated December 16. 4. Petitioners allege that the relationship between a planholder and a pre-need corporation was one of trust and not a debtor-creditor relationship. The main issue is whether or not respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the Order dated September 13. FILED AHEAD OF THE REHABILITATION WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT’S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 16. At the outset.

and the beneficiary as cestui que trust. established with a trustee under a trust agreement approved by the Commission. Petitioners contend that respondent Judge “acted completely without jurisdiction in giving due course to the petition for rehabilitation. separate and distinct from the paid -up capital of a registered Pre-Need Company. CAP may not avail itself of rehabilitation proceedings to stop payments from its trust assets to the beneficiaries. including planholders in the Stay Order and including trust assets in the rehabilitation proceedings notwithstanding the fact that there was a prior case filed by planholders for receivership and management committee and that the assets of debtors do not include the funds collected from planholders.” Petitioners’ arguments do not persuade. which mandated a pre-need company to set up a trust fund for the benefit of the beneficiary and in compliance with the agreement.9 of the Pre-Need Rules defines “trust fund” as a fund set up from the planholders’ payments. the pre-need firm as trustee. to pay for the benefits as provided in the Pre-Need Plan. hence. Petitioners add that Section 1.that in 2002. Petitioners assert that since a trust relationship exists between a planholder and a pre-need company. the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented the New Pre-Need Rules. they contend that an express trust relationship exists between the policyholder as trustor. .

and includes life. 8799. as amended. 902-A.” Section 16. No.D. requiring the registration of pre-need plans. imposing capital. thus: SEC.A. education. which includes “[p]etitions of corporations.) No. Pre-Need Plans. The law governing corporate rehabilitation and suspension of actions for claims against corporations is Presidential Decree (P. interment. Such rules shall regulate the sale of preneed plans by.16. No. prescribing advertising guidelines. for which planholders pay in cash or installment at stated prices. 8799 provides for the regulation of preneed plans by SEC. defines “pre-need plans” as “contracts which provide for the performance of future services or the payment of future monetary considerations at the time of actual need. with or without interest or insurance coverage. licensing persons involved in the sale of pre-need plans.No person shall sell or offer for sale to the public any pre-need plan except in accordance with rules and regulations which the Commission (SEC) shall prescribe. No. 1758. as amended by P. Republic Act (R. providing for uniform accounting system.CAP is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling pre-need educational plans.D. partnerships or associations to be declared in the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation. among other things. reports and recordkeeping with respect to such plans. -. enumerates the cases over which SEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide. and establishing trust funds for the payment of benefits under such plans.D. Chapter IV of R. otherwise known as The Securities Regulation Code. pension.) No. and other plans which the Commission may from time to time approve. bonding and other financial responsibility. partnership or association possesses .A. requiring disclosures to prospective planholders. Section 5 of P. 902-A.

No. No. CAP filed the petition for corporate rehabilitation. as amended. Who May Petition.D. No. Rule 4 of the Interim Rules. No. but is under the management of a Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.” CAP filed the petition under Section 1.A. which provides: SECTION 1. because it is “unable to service its debts as they fall due and its assets are insufficient to cover its liabilities. 2000. to the courts of general jurisdiction or the appropriate Regional Trial Court. this Court approved the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2000 (Interim Rules).D. 902-A. 2000. as amended. 2000. partnerships. may petition the proper Regional Trial Court to have the debtor placed under rehabilitation. M-6144. which took effect on August 8. and associations pursuant to P. transferred SEC’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5 of P. Proc. partnership or association has no sufficient assets to cover its liabilities. 902-A. The Interim Rules apply to petitions for rehabilitation filed by corporations.” R. 8799. On November 21. or any creditor or creditors holding at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the debtor’s total liabilities. which took effect on December 15. The Interim Rules governed the proceedings in Sp.— Any debtor who foresees the impossibility of meeting its debts when they respectively fall due.sufficient property to cover all its debts. . but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or in cases where the corporation.

” The Interim Rules does not distinguish whether a pre-need corporation like CAP cannot file a petition for rehabilitation before the RTC. on whose behalf a petition for rehabilitation has been filed under these Rules. “debtor” shall mean “any corporation. Moreover. or association. Section 6. No. partnership. “claim” shall include “all claims or demands of whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property. under the Interim Rules.” “Creditor” shall mean “any holder of a claim. Rule 4 of the Interim Rules or Section 6(c) of P. 902-A. Courts are not authorized to distinguish where the Interim Rules makes no distinction. the claim of petitioners for payment of tuition fees from CAP is included in the definition of “claims” under the Interim Rules. Rule 4 of the Interim Rules provides: . What is to be determined at this point is whether or not claims arising from the pre-need contracts between petitioners and CAP can be stayed under Section 6.” Hence.Under the Interim Rules. whether supervised or regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission or other government agencies. whether for money or otherwise.D.

rehabilitation receiver. (c) prohibiting the debtor from selling. not later than ten (10) days before the date of the initial hearing and putting them on notice that their failure to do so will bar them from participating in the proceedings. against the debtor. which mandates that “upon appointment of a management committee. it shall. whether for money or otherwise. (f) directing the payment. The above provision does not provide that a claim arising from a pre-need contract is an exception to the power of the trial court to stay enforcement of all claims upon the finding that the petition for rehabilitation is sufficient in form and substance. 1758. P.D. with supporting affidavits and documents.SEC. -. not later than five (5) days from the filing of the petition. 602-A. and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise. The foregoing provision echoes the provision in Section 6(c) of the governing law. transferring. No. in full. of all administrative expenses incurred after the issuance of the stay order. (d) prohibiting the debtor from making any payment of its liabilities outstanding as of the date of filing of the petition. encumbering. No. (e) prohibiting the debtor's suppliers of goods or services from withholding supply of goods and services in the ordinary course of business for as long as the debtor makes payments for the services and goods supplied after the issuance of the stay order. (i) directing all creditors and all interested parties (including the Securities and Exchange Commission) to file and serve on the debtor a verified comment on or opposition to the petition. as amended by P. (h) directing the petitioner to publish the Order in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks. Stay Order.D. issue an Order: (a) appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver and fixing his bond. its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor.If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance. or disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of business. (g) fixing the initial hearing on the petition not earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than sixty (60) days from the filing thereof. board . and (j) directing the creditors and interested parties to secure from the court copies of the petition and its annexes within such time as to enable themselves to file their comment on or opposition to the petition and to prepare for the initial hearing of the petition. 6. (b) staying enforcement of all claims.

the Court held that “P. such a relationship has not been properly established by petitioners. Nevertheless.or body.D. x x x all actions for claims against corporations. tribunal. However. neither should we. the power of the RTC to issue a Stay Order when it finds the petition for rehabilitation to be sufficient in form and substance is contained in Section 7. Under the 2009 Rules of Procedure. board or body shall be suspended accordingly.” In Negros Navigation Co. partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court. Petitioners contend that the relationship between a planholder and a pre-need corporation is one of trust and not a debtor-creditor relationship. there is no provision in the . since the law does not make any exemptions or distinctions. Inc. This Court is not a trier of facts and cannot rule in this petition on whether the relationship between CAP and the planholders is one of trust. No.. Rule 3. absent a factual finding by the trial court. v. which likewise does not exempt claims arising from pre-need contracts from the Stay Order. which took effect on January 16.” The Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2000 has been amended by the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2009. 2009. 902-A does not make any distinction as to what claims are covered by the suspension of actions for claims against corporations under rehabilitation x x x Thus. even if the relationship is one of trust. Court of Appeals.

Proc. v. Once the corporation threatened by bankruptcy is taken over by a receiver. As between the creditors. hence. No. whether secured or unsecured. The contention is without merit. M 6144) are two different cases. all the creditors ought to stand on equal footing. the key phrase is equality in equity. All assets of a corporation under rehabilitation receivership are held in trust for the equal benefit of all creditors to preclude one from obtaining an advantage or preference over another by the expedience of attachment. execution or otherwise. 05-365) and CAP’s petition for rehabilitation (Sp. Petitioners also contend that the Rehabilitation Court may not appoint a rehabilitation receiver when a previous intra-corporate dispute (SEC Case No. The case for specific performance and/or annulment of contract was filed pursuant to the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate . Court of Appeals explained the reason for suspending all pending claims against a corporation under receivership.. Negros Navigation Co. The case for specific performance and/or annulment of contract (SEC Case No. respondent Judge has the discretion to decide each case according to its merits. Inc. 05365) with prayer for the immediate appointment of a receiver has been filed ahead of the petition for rehabilitation. thus: x x x x The stay order is effective on all creditors of the corporation without distinction. Not one of them should be paid ahead of the others.Interim Rules that a claim arising from a trust relationship is excluded from the Stay Order.

. and hereby resolves to give due course to the petition.Controversies. it finds the interests of the planholder/investing public as an overriding consideration which cannot be summarily or injudiciously dismissed without a thorough evaluation by the Rehabilitation Receiver of the corporation’s chances of being restored to a successful operation and solvency if given the opportunity and considering particularly the adverse results to the planholders of a liquidation scenario as against its proposed rehabilitation under which they may possibly recover 100% of their contributions. Absent any provision in the Interim Rules. or P. It explained its decision. Rule 4 of the latter Interim Rules. as amended. thus: The Court has carefully evaluated the Petition and the comments filed by the various parties relative thereto. 902-A exempting claims arising from pre-need contracts from a court order staying enforcement of all claims against the debtor/pre-need company. In the Order dated December 16. the Court holds that respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the Stay Order against petitioners. respondent Judge has the authority to appoint a rehabilitation receiver after finding the petition for rehabilitation to be sufficient in form and substance. respondent Judge did not gravely abuse its discretion in giving due course to the petition for rehabilitation. No. while CAP’s petition for rehabilitation was filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. Even as the Court notes the substantial questions posed by the SEC and some creditors on the solvency of the corporation. Under Section 6. the RTC considered the comments of the SEC and CAP’s creditors before resolving the petition. In addition.D. 2005.

Despite the Court’s finding that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in issuing the Orders staying the enforcement of all claims against CAP and in giving due course to CAP’s petition for rehabilitation. they do not fall within the scope of this petition for certiorari. and in order that it may be well-guided in its final disposition of the petition. Grave abuse of discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. WHEREFORE. the Court finds merit in the Petition sufficient to warrant its referral to the Rehabilitation Receiver for study and evaluation. or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of passion or personal hostility. It is absent in this case. The other issues raised pertain to matters that were not discussed in the subject RTC Orders or are not pertinent to the main issue of whether or not respondent Judge gravely abused its discretion in including the claims of petitioners in the Stay Order. It must be as patent and gross as to amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. petitioners are not precluded from seeking other remedies available to them with the lower court.On the basis of the allegations of the petition and the Business Development Plan. . hence. No costs.

CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Chairperson MINITA V. JR. VELASCO. DIOSDADO M. NACHURA Associate Justice ATTESTATION .SO ORDERED.

REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice . Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13. Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice Third Division.I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->