RYCE CORP v. CHINA BANKING CORP
G. R. No. 172302February 18, 2014
Art. III, Sec. 10FACTS:
The present case originated from a petition for corporate rehabilitation filed by petitioner Pryce
Corporation on July 9, 2004 with the Regional Trial Court of Makati which found
the petition sufficient in form and substance and issued a stay order and appointing Gener T.Men
doza as rehabilitation receiver. On February 23, 2005, respondent China Banking Corporation
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. Its petition questioned the January 17, 2005 order that
included the followingterms:1. The indebtedness to China Banking Corporation and Bank of the
Philippine Islands as well as the long term commercial papers will be paid through a dacion en
pago of developed real-estate assets of the petitioner.2. All accrued penalties are waived.3.
Interests shall accrue only up to July 13, 2004, the date of issuance of the stay order.4. No
interest will accrue during the pendency of petitioner’s corporate rehabilitation.5. Dollar-
denominated loans will be converted to Philippine Pesos on the date of the issuance of this Order
using the reference rate of the Philippine Dealing System as of this date. Respondent China
Banking Corporation contended that the rehabilitation plan’s approval impaired the obligations
of contracts. It argued that neither the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 902-
A nor the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Interim Rules)empowered
commercial courts "to render without force and effect valid contractual stipulations. “Moreover,
the plan’s approval authorizing dacion en pago of petitioner Pryce Corporation’s properties
without respondent China Banking Corporation’s consent not only violated "mutualityof contract
and due process, but was also antithetical to the avowed policies of the state to maintain a
competitive financial system. Court of Appeals Seventh (7th) Division granted respondent China
Banking Corporation’s petition, and reversed and set aside the rehabilitation. Hence this petition

SEC vs. Interport Resources Corporation

GR No. 135808October 6, 2008
FACTS: In 1994, an investigative proceeding was conducted by the SEC against
respondent Interport Resources Corporation for failure to make timely disclosures of
their negotiations with Ganda Energy Holdings, a violation against the Revised
Securities Act. However, the proceeding was interrupted by a writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the Court of Appeals, which became permanent in 1998.During the
pendency of this case, the Securities Regulations Code repealed the Revised Securities
Act, which give SEC of its jurisdiction to continue investigating the case, or the Regional
Trial Court to hear any case which may later be filed against herein respondent. As a
defense, respondents averred that the case is already deemed moot and academic, since
any criminal complaint that may be filed against them resulting from the SEC
investigation has already prescribed. They point out the prescriptive period of 12 years
from the time of the commission of the crime, under Sec. 1 of Act No. 3326 (An Act to
Establish Period of Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special Acts). Since the
offense was committed in 1994,prescription has already set in as early as 2006.

ISSUE:Whether or not the filing of complaint by SEC against respondent has already
prescribed, in pursuant to Sec. 1 Act 3326