Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Puruganan Chato Tan & Geronimo for petitioner in G.R. No. 112991.
Potenciano A. Flores for petitioners in G.R. No. 109373.
Marbibi Law Office for private respondent.
The Solicitor General for public respondent.
SYLLABUS
DECISION
MENDOZA, J : p
In his order dated September 11, 1992, respondent judge of the RTC
directed the Liquidator to pay private respondents the total amount of their
claim as preferred creditors. 7
The Liquidator received the order on September 16, 1992. On
September 30, 1992 he moved for reconsideration, but his motion was
denied by the court on October 2, 1992. He received the order denying his
Motion for Reconsideration on October 5, 1992. On October 14,1992 he filed
a Notice of Appeal from the orders of September 16, 1992 and October 2,
1992. As in the case of the Union, however, the judge ordered the Notice of
Appeal stricken off the record on the ground that it had been filed without
authority of the Central Bank and beyond 15 days. In his order of October 28,
1992, the judge directed the execution of his September 11, 1992 order
granting the Stockholders/Investors' claim.
II.
Proceedings in the Court of Appeals
The Liquidator filed separate Petitions for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to set aside the orders of the trial court
denying his appeal from the orders granting the claims of Union and of the
Stockholders/Investors. The two Divisions of the Court of Appeals, to which
the cases were separately raffled, rendered conflicting rulings.
In its decision of November 17, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 27751 (nowG.R.
No. 109373) the Fifth Division 8 held in the case of the Union that the
proceeding before the trial court was a special proceeding and, therefore,
the period for appealing from any decision or final order rendered therein is
30 days. Since the notice of appeal of the Liquidator was filed on the 30th
day of his receipt of the decision granting the Union's claims, the appeal was
brought on time. The Fifth Division, therefore, set aside the orders of the
lower court and directed the latter to give due course to the appeal of the
Liquidator and set the Record on Appeal he had filed for hearing. llcd
On the other hand, in G.R. No. 112991 the Liquidator contends that:
1. The Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of the Pacific
Banking Corporation is a Special Proceeding case and/or one
which allows multiple appeals, in which case the period of appeal
is 30 days and not 15 days from receipt of the order/judgment
appealed from.
2. Private respondents are not creditors of PaBC but are plain
stockholders whose right to receive payment as such would
accrue only after all the creditors of the insolvent bank have
been paid.
3. The claim of private respondents in the amount of
US$22,531,632.18 is not in the nature of foreign investment as it
is understood in law.
4. The claim of private respondents has not been clearly
established and proved.
5. The issuance of a writ of execution against the assets of PaBC
was made with grave abuse of discretion.
It should be pointed out that this petition filed is not among the
cases categorized as a special proceeding under Section 1, Rule 72 of
the Rules of Court, nor among the special proceedings that may be
appealed under Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules.
Footnotes
(e) The payment of 10% of the total claims as computed, due and
paid to the plaintiffs/intervenors' counsel, Atty. Potenciano A. Flores, as
attorney's fees through the Branch Clerk of Court.
The Monetary Claims of the plaintiffs/intervenors for the Emergency
Leave credits, Hospital Assistance Funds, and Anniversary Increase are
DENIED unless supporting documents are presented by
claimants/intervenors as attested by PaBC's physician and/or responsible
officers of the PaBC that they are entitled to said claims.
SO ORDERED.
a) The claim for holiday pay covering the period from November 1,
1974 to October 31, 1985;
b) The claim for 28% salary differential pursuant to the CBA
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
increase;
c) The claim for Christmas Bonus which should be pro rated based
on the employees length of service rendered up to 1985 when the Pacific
Banking Corporation was placed under liquidation; and
10. §1. Interpleader when proper. — Whenever conflicting claims upon the
same subject matter are or may be made against a person, who claims no
interest whatever in the subject matter, or an interest which in whole or in
part is not disputed by the claimants, he may bring an action against the
conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several
claims among themselves.
11. 1 MORAN, COMMENTS ON THE RULE OF COURT 119-120 (1979), citing
Hagans v. Wislizenus, 42 Phil. 880, 882, (1922).
12. Alvarez v. Commonwealth, 65 Phil. 302 (1938).
13. Rep. Act No. 265, 29, as amended.
14. Salud v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 143 SCRA 590 (1986).
15. 162 SCRA 288 (1988).
16. Rollo , p. 41, G.R. No. 112991.
17. Annexes "H" and "I", Rollo , CA-G.R. S.P. No. 27751.