FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 184751. August 3, 2016.]
680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, vs. RTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, respondent.
[G.R. No. 184752. August 3, 2016.]
680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, vs. EDRIC B. FERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Assistant Vice-President of Banco de Oro Universal Bank, ATTY. ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, in her capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.
[G.R. No. 184753. August 3, 2016.]
680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, vs. BENILDA A. TEJADA, RENATO A. CASTILLO and JOMINI M. VENAGO, in their capacities as duly authorized officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 3, 2016 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 184751 — 680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, versusRTC-QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 90, respondent.
G.R. No. 184752 — 680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, versusEDRIC B. FERNANDEZ, in his capacity as Assistant Vice-President of Banco de Oro Universal Bank, ATTY. ENGRACIO M. ESCASINAS, JR., in his capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, and ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, in her capacity as Ex-Officio Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.
G.R. No. 184753 — 680 HOME APPLIANCES, INC., petitioner, versusBENILDA A. TEJADA, RENATO A. CASTILLO and JOMINI M. VENAGO, in their capacities as duly authorized officers of the Development Bank of the Philippines, respondents.
The material facts, as shown by the records, are as follows:
Petitioner 680 filed a petition for rehabilitation with respondent Regional Trial Court (RTC). A stay order was issued, but the said petition was eventually denied by the RTC on the ground that the rehabilitation plan submitted by petitioner 680 was "not feasible and viable." Petitioner 680 appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and thereafter sought to submit a "revised" rehabilitation plan on the ground that the Decision of the RTC had become "outdated" due to supervening events (i.e., alleged increase in rental income from several properties of petitioner 680, etc.). In a Decision, the CA denied the appeal on the ground that the approval of a revised rehabilitation plan would only frustrate the entire proceedings had before the RTC and that such relief was not included among the matters 1 submitted for review in petitioner 680's appeal. Unsatisfied, 680 filed the instant Petition, placing in issue the propriety of admitting a revised rehabilitation plan, among others.
In the meantime, the following developments occurred in connection with this case: HDICSa
To recall, the four (4) respondent banks in this case are: Banco de Oro (BDO), Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI), Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), and Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). During the pendency of this case, LBP assigned its rights to Philippine Opportunities for Growth and Income (SPV-AMC), Inc. (POGI), while HSBC assigned its rights to Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank).
DBP
On September 4, 2012, counsel for respondent DBP filed a Notice of Appearance with Urgent Manifestation, 2 praying that the instant Petition be resolved, with or without the responsive pleadings from the other respondents, which was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated March 20, 2013. 3
BDO
On June 20, 2013, respondent BDO filed a Manifestation with Joint Omnibus Motion, praying that the Compromise Agreement attached be approved and that the petition for indirect contempt against Mr. Edric B. Fernandez, Atty. Engracio Escasinas, Jr. and Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele be dismissed with prejudice, 4 which was noted by this Court in a Resolution dated July 10, 2013. 5
BPI
On September 3, 2014, respondent BPI filed a Joint Motion to Approve Compromise Agreement and/or to Dismiss Case. 6 Acting on the same, this Court required the Petitioner to submit a soft copy thereof in a Resolution dated September 17, 2014.
Deutsche Bank
On October 14, 2015, petitioner 680 filed a Motion to Drop Party and/or Dismiss Case, attaching therewith a Compromise Agreement between petitioner and respondents Deutsche Bank and POGI and First Sovereign Asset Management (SPV-AMC), Inc. 7
This Court particularly notes that, as indicated by the records, the rehabilitation plan submitted by petitioner 680 was disapproved at the first instance by the RTC and that the stay order issued therein had been deemed lifted by the denial of the petition. Hence, no on-going proceedings may be prejudiced by this Court's dispositive action on the instant Petition, as will be discussed below.
It bears noting that three (3) out of the four (4) respondent banks, together with petitioner 680, have called upon this Court to dismiss the case in view of the execution of the said Compromise Agreements.
Thus, in the interest of abbreviating the proceedings and in deference to the parties' obvious intention of settling the dispute amicably, this Court resolves to dismiss the instant Petition for petitioner 680's lack of interest to prosecute the same ostensibly arising from the execution of the aforementioned Compromise Agreements. IDaEHC
All told, in light of the abovementioned Compromise Agreements and petitioner 680's lack of interest to further pursue this case, this Court resolves to dismiss the instant Petition.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we DENY the Petition for lack of interest to prosecute and/or for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. As summarized by the CA, the issues raised by 680 in its appeal are as follows: (i) the court a quo gravely erred when it denied the petition for rehabilitation on the sole ground of non-acceptance of the creditors, and (ii) the court a quo gravely erred when it deprived the petitioner its right to present a revised rehabilitation plan considering there were then on-going negotiations for settlement among the parties.
2. Rollo, (Vol. III), pp. 2449-2452.
3. Id. at 2502.
4. Id. at 2467-2490.
5. Id. at 2500.
6. Id. at 2527-2533.
7. Id. at 2546-2562.