You are on page 1of 11

G.R. No. 188365. June 29, 2011.

*

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC., petitioner, vs. PRYCE
GASES,
INC.,
INTERNATIONAL
FINANCE
CORPORATION,
and
NEDERLANDSE
FINANCIERINGS-MAATSCHAPPIJ
VOOR
ONTWIKKELINGSLANDEN N.V., respondents.
Corporate Rehabilitation; Appeals; Under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC,
a petition for corporate rehabilitation is considered a special
proceeding; The period of appeal shall be 30 days since a record of
appeal is required.·Section 5 of the Interim Rules on Corporate
Rehabilitation provides that „(t)he review of any order or decision of
the court or an appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the
Rules of Court x x x.‰ Under A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, a petition for
corporate rehabilitation is considered a special proceeding. Thus,
the period of appeal provided in paragraph 19(b) of the Interim
Rules Relative to the Implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
for special proceedings shall apply, that is, the period of appeal shall
be 30 days since a record of appeal is required.

_______________
** Designated as Acting Member of the Second Division per Special Order
No. 1006 dated June 10, 2011.
* SECOND DIVISION.

43

VOL. 653, JUNE 29, 2011

43

BPI Family Savings Bank, Inc. vs. Pryce Gases, Inc.

Same; Same; A partyÊs appeal by record on appeal is deemed
perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter therein upon
approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.·Under Section

·Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. it may be invoked only in situations where there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading. the proceedings shall be summary and non-adversarial in nature and a motion for new trial or reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Inc. Benedicto. PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. Pantaleon & San Jose for . Gabionza & De Santos for Pryce Gases.9. failing in which the right to appeal is lost.‰ Same. Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. The party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Under Section 1. BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2006 Order of the RTC. „(a) partyÊs appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record on appeal filed in due time. in certain cases. but not where its application subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court. Villanueva. Under Section 1. Castillo. Same. Pryce Gases. failing in which the right to appeal is lost. Branch 138. applies the policy of liberal construction.R. the proceedings shall be summary and non-adversarial in nature and a motion for new trial or reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. Same. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The party1 who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. R. 44 44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank. Inc. Tan. Branch 138. in view of the failure of BFB to perfect its appeal and its subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC. vs. Inc. Laman.·In addition. Gealogo & Burkley for petitioner. Versoza. While the Court. Hence. The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court. Torralba & Associates co-counsel for Pryce Gases. approving the rehabilitation plan had become final and executory. Inc.

PGI is a debtor of the International Finance Corporation (IFC). Villamor. carbonex. nitrogen. an international organization and an affiliate of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (World Bank).V. argon.R. ings-Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N. JUNE 29. 2011 45 BPI Family Savings Bank. and other allied or related products. vs. Tolentino with Associate Justices Pampio A. carbon dioxide. On 27 August 2002. 98-100. acetylene. Abarintos and Antonio L. and the Nederlandse Financier_______________ 1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. J. Tolentino and Lucenito N. Inc.respondents International Finance Corporation and Nederlandse Financierings-Maatschappij Voor Ontwikkelingslanden N. including but not limited to oxygen. Inc. at pp. selling and trading in all kinds of liquids. 653. (FMO). SP No. hydrogen. nitrous oxide. gases. 2 Rollo. pp.V. Dizon with Associate Justices Amelita G. Pryce Gases.. Tagle. CARPIO. 53-62. Penned by Associate Justice Agustin S. 45 VOL. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. 3 Id. concurring. IFC and FMO filed a Petition for Rehabilitation4 with the Regional Trial Court of Makati due to the failure of PGI to service its debts as well as the . Batuhan. The Antecedent Facts Pryce Gases. (PGI) is a corporation engaged in the business of producing. Blando. 98626. helium. concurring. and other chemicals. Concepcion & Francisco for Rehabilitation Receiver.: The Case Before the Court is a petition for review1 assailing the Decision2 promulgated on 26 February 2008 and the Resolution3 promulgated on 11 June 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. compressed air. a Dutch development bank engaged in promoting the expansion of private enterprise in emerging markets. Inc.

Branch 138. No. Pryce Gases. the Pryce Corporation. Based on the proposed financial restructuring. the RTC. and (2) the unsustainable portion to be transformed into redeemable preferred shares with voting rights. study and recommendation on the proposed rehabilitation of PGI. Jr. The case was re-raffled to RTC. The case was raffled to Branch 142 and was docketed as SP Proc. Receiver and directed him to submit his evaluation. Signed by Judge Sixto Marella.refusal of PGIÊs parent company.. Under the proposal. The Ruling of the Trial Court In an Order6 dated 24 January 2003. 46 46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank. Inc. 02-1016. at pp. vs. Gener Mendoza (Mendoza) as Rehabilitation _______________ 4 Id. The RTC. at pp. that its parent company. (BFB) shall be paid in ten years as it was a non-MTI5 creditor. The petition for rehabilitation was meant to preserve PGIÊs workforce and ensure that its cash flow would not be diverted to ill-advised ventures but would instead be channeled back to its operating capital to generate profits to pay off and retire debts. Branch 138. gave due course to the petition. to provide financial support to PGI. Branch 138. 6 Id. senior loans shall be paid in five years while the shares are forecast to be redeemed in ten years. 106-119. PGIÊs loan from BPI Family Savings Bank. Presiding Judge Estela Perlas-Bernabe of RTC. In a Manifestation7 dated 29 May 2003. Inc. PGI informed RTC.. Branch 138. 136-138. IFC and FMO proposed a financial restructuring that called for the conversion of dollar-denominated loans to peso and the splitting of the whole debt instrument into two categories: (1) the sustainable debt which would be rescheduled as a senior loan and secured by PGIÊs assets. 5 Mortgage Trust Indenture. inhibited herself from further hearing the case. Inc. Branch 142. appointed Mr. Pryce .

In a Compliance8 dated July 2003. 10 Id. Branch 138. approved the rehabilitation plan. at pp. had offered to help through dacion en pago of its real estate assets to PGIÊs creditors. 11 Id.13 PGI filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that BFB _______________ 7 Id.. 177-191. In an Order12 dated 10 October 2003. vs.. Inc. Pryce Gases. ... 159-168. Creditors Secured with Non-Operating Assets. at p. Inc. On 3 November 2003. at pp. BFBÊs exposure to PGI was secured by assets that were considered non-operating and not critical to the rehabilitation plan recommended by Mendoza. 146. 9 Id. 145-148. at pp. failed to perfect the appeal because of failure to file the record on appeal within the required period. 12 Id. the RTC.Corporation. 8 Id. Mendoza submitted his recommendation which. at pp.. at pp. 192-193. 13 Id.. subject to certain terms and conditions.‰9 In its Comment10 to MendozaÊs Compliance. at pp. 153-158. BFB objected to dacion en pago as a mode of payment. BFB filed a notice of appeal. 50 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank. among others. 2002 by way of assets already mortgaged to them at dacion values pegged to the average of two appraisals to be undertaken by Bangko Sentralaccredited appraisal firms who are nominated by the creditors in a meeting called for that purpose. states: „2.·Payment of principal and interest accrued as of August 31.. PGI and Pryce Corporation submitted a Partial Opposition11 to the provision on income sharing of receiverÊs recommended revised rehabilitation plan but manifested their conformity to the other provisions of the plan. 139-144.

ruled that the law clearly states that in special proceedings.17 the RTC.. 16 Id. is dismissed. Branch 138.. Inc. denied the motion on the ground that the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation prohibit the filing of motions for reconsideration. could resolve PGIÊs motion to dismiss. 238. 252. 18 Denominated as a Petition for Review but filed under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.‰16 BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2006 Order. Inc. BFB filed its Opposition (Re: Additional Argument in Support of Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated 27 July 2004) and Motion With Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal Dated 3 November 2003 and Instead Be Allowed to File a Petition for Review. In its Order dated 16 February 2007. at pp. The dispositive portion of the Order reads: „WHEREFORE. 17 Id... SO ORDERED. 237-238. dismissed BFBÊs appeal. Inc. is granted and the appeal of BPI Family Savings Bank. Pryce Gases. record on appeal is required to perfect the appeal. Branch 138. at p. The RTC. Inc. On 19 April 2007. 225-229. the Motion to Dismiss Appeal filed by respondent Pryce Gases. BFB filed a petition for certiorari18 before the Court of Appeals. 48 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank.14 In an Order15 dated 9 May 2006. Branch 138. no action need to be taken by the Court on the Motion for Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal dated 3 November 2003 and Instead Be Allowed to File a Petition for Review filed by BPI Family Savings Bank. Penned by Pairing Judge Jenny Lind R. AldecoaDelorino. Consequently. before the RTC. The Decision of the Court of Appeals . vs.On 20 April 2006. the RTC. _______________ 14 Id. Inc. at pp. at p. 15 Id. Branch 138.

‰19 The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals . The Court of Appeals further ruled that BFBÊs prayer that the petition be treated as filed under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure lacked merit because it was filed out of time. Branch 138. The Court of Appeals ruled that the mere filing of a notice of appeal would not suffice without the required record on appeal. the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition. the petition before this Court on the following grounds: „1. the 10 October 2003 Order had become final and executory. JUNE 29. Finally. Hence. The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved an issue in a manner contrary to law and jurisprudence when it upheld the ruling of the 49 VOL. Inc. a completely different entity from BPI Family Savings Bank. The Court of Appeals ruled that corporate rehabilitations are special proceedings and as such. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.In its 26 February 2008 Decision. the Court of Appeals denied the motion for lack of merit. vs. The Court of Appeals ruled that when BFB filed the notice of appeal. appeals from the final order or decision therein should be by record on appeal in accordance with Section 2. Inc. 2011 49 BPI Family Savings Bank. The Honorable Court of Appeals resolved an issue in a manner contrary to law and jurisprudence when it upheld the ruling of the lower court that dismissed the appeal of petitioner bank. lower court which in effect forced and compelled petitioner bank to accept a dacion en pago arrangement against its consent. Inc. In its 11 June 2009 Resolution. The Court of Appeals ruled that due to the dismissal of BFBÊs appeal and the denial of its motion for reconsideration by the RTC. the Court of Appeals ruled that BFBÊs petition was grossly defective because the verification was signed by an employee of the Bank of the Philippine Islands. 653. BFB filed a motion for reconsideration. the rule in force was the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation which required the filing of a record on appeal. Pryce Gases. and 2.

Pryce Gases. the period of appeal shall be thirty (30) days.21 that is. Inc. 22 Id. Regional Trial Court. 165001.R. No.‰ Under A.22 Thus: 19.M. No. Branch 138.20 Thus. Iloilo City. _______________ 19 Rollo. On 14 September 2004. 513 SCRA 601. a record of appeal being required. 8799 shall be appealed to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 31 January 2007. the period of appeal shall be 30 days since a record of appeal is required. No. The Ruling of this Court The petition has no merit.M. 20 New Frontier Sugar Corporation v. vs. G. the period of appeal provided in paragraph 19(b) of the Interim Rules Relative to the Implementation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 04-907-SC providing that all decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing IntraCorporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 00-8-10-SC.committed a reversible error in sustaining the RTC. Inc. to be filed . Branch 39. 50 50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank. this Court issued A. Period of Appeal. 129 for special proceedings shall apply.· (a) x x x (b)  In appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed. p. 39. 21 Id. a petition for corporate rehabilitation is considered a special proceeding. Section 5 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation provides that „(t)he review of any order or decision of the court or an appeal therefrom shall be in accordance with the Rules of Court x x x. in dismissing BFBÊs appeal.

No. the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner. 2. 8799 shall be appealed to the Court of . 04-9-07-SC providing that all decisions and final _______________ 23 Id.·The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. Inc. JUNE 29. at the time of filing of BFBÊs appeal. before the effectivity of A. 04-9-07-SC.‰ Under Section 9. vs. The issuance by the Court of A. BFB did not perfect the appeal when it failed to file the record on appeal. the applicable mode of appeal is Section 2. in this case.· (a) Ordinary appeal. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. „(a) partyÊs appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.M. In such cases. Modes of Appeal. 653.‰ In this case. 51 VOL. Hence. Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides: „Sec. No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require.within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or final order of the Regional Trial Court. Pryce Gases.23 However. Inc. 2011 51 BPI Family Savings Bank. the Rules required the filing of the record on appeal and not merely a notice of appeal. orders in cases falling under the Interim Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No.M. BFB filed a notice of appeal on 3 November 2003. The filing of the notice of appeal on 3 November 2003 was not sufficient because at the time of its filing. No.

BFB filed its Motion With Leave to Withdraw Notice of Appeal only on 20 April 2006 or almost two years after the issuance of A. 25 Stolt-Nielsen Services.M. 159116. we DENY the petition. Appeal is not a matter of right but a mere statutory privilege. BFB filed a motion for reconsideration of the 9 May 2006 Order of the RTC. Further. v. Court of Appeals. vs.R. Branch 138. 601 SCRA 351. We AFFIRM the .25 While the Court. No. Under Section 1. 04-9-07-SC on 14 September 2004. Court of Appeals. Inc. National Labor Relations Commission. Pryce Gases. Inc. Rule 3 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. the 10 October 2003 Order of the RTC. the proceedings shall be summary and nonadversarial in nature and a motion for new trial or reconsideration is a prohibited pleading. Inc. but not where its application subverts the essence of the proceeding or results in the utter disregard of the Rules of Court. 26 Dadizon v.Appeals through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. 52 52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED BPI Family Savings Bank. G. 479 SCRA 594 (2006). Branch 138. 568. did not change the fact that BFBÊs appeal was not perfected. to be filed within 15 days from notice of the decision or final order of the Regional Trial Court. 477 SCRA 516 (2005). 642. it may be invoked only in situations where there is some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading. in view of the failure of BFB to perfect its appeal and its subsequent filing of a motion for reconsideration which is a prohibited pleading. failing in which the right to appeal is lost. WHEREFORE. 515 Phil. approving the rehabilitation plan had become final and executory. No.26 In addition. 513 Phil. 30 September 2009. in certain cases.24 The party who seeks to exercise the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Hence. applies the policy of liberal construction. _______________ 24 Cu-Unjieng v.

. (China Banking Corporation vs. 575 SCRA 247 [2008]) ··o0o·· © Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply. 98626. Inc. promote a wider and more meaningful equitable distribution of wealth and protect investments and the public. judgment and resolution affirmed. All rights reserved. SO ORDERED. ASB Holdings Inc. at all times.** Brion.R.·In intruding into corporate affairs. Leonardo-De Castro. Petition denied. . JJ. SP No.26 February 2008 Decision and the 11 June 2009 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. Perez and Sereno. Note.. the State must. concur.