FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 178786. June 26, 2013.]
FILCREDIT FINANCE AND CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. SASPAI SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, INC., YOLANDA G. MANIWANG AND REYNALDO V. MANIWANG, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 26, 2013 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 178786 (FilCredit Finance and Capital Development Corporation vs. SASPAI Security and Investigation Agency, Inc., Yolanda G. Maniwang and Reynaldo V. Maniwang). — On August 26, 2007, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 was filed. It seeks the reversal of the Orders issued on February 23, 2007 2 and May 28, 2007 3 by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 220 4 (RTC-QC) relative to Civil Case No. Q-02-47526, a complaint for collection of a sum of money and damages filed by FilCredit Finance and Capital Development Corporation (FilCredit) against SASPAI Security and Investigation Agency, Inc. (SASPAI) and Spouses Yolanda and Reynaldo Maniwang (Spouses Maniwang). The assailed orders held in abeyance the implementation of the writ of execution, 5 which was previously issued by the RTC-QC on November 18, 2005 against SASPAI and Spouses Maniwang, in accordance with the Decision 6 rendered on August 10, 2004 pursuant to the Compromise Agreement 7 entered into by the contending parties in the said civil case on July 19, 2004. aCSHDI
This Court notes that the Orders dated February 23, 2007 and May 28, 2007 were issued by the RTC-QC to resolve the Motion to Hold [the] Implementation of the Writ of Execution 8 of Honorato S. Cordova (Cordova), the receiver appointed for SASPAI by the RTC of Davao City, Branch 10 9 (RTC-Davao City) before which FilCredit filed a petition for rehabilitation. The assailed orders favorably considered Cordova's proposition that by virtue of the Stay Order 10 issued on June 27, 2005 by the RTC-Davao City, the implementation of the writ of execution dated November 18, 2005 should be held in abeyance not only relative to the properties registered in SASPAI's name, but also with respect to the (a) three parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. 109329, 86213 and RT-120846 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City which were assigned by Spouses Maniwang to FilCredit, and (b) movables listed in the inventory submitted to the Rehabilitation Court.
FilCredit argues that the aforementioned three parcels of land in Quezon City registered in Spouses Maniwang's names and the movables listed in the inventory submitted to the Rehabilitation Court are beyond the coverage of the Stay Order issued on June 27, 2005. Further, notwithstanding the pendency of the rehabilitation proceedings, the writ of execution dated November 18, 2005 can be enforced against Spouses Maniwang who acted as sureties for SASPAI in obtaining the loans.
This Court notes that SASPAI's petition for rehabilitation before the RTC-Davao City was filed on June 23, 2005. Rule 4, Section 11 of A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC 11 (Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation) provides that the petition shall be dismissed if no rehabilitation plan is approved by the trial court upon the lapse of 180 days from the date of the initial hearing. The trial court can, however, grant an extension beyond this period only if it appears by convincing and compelling evidence that the debtor may successfully be rehabilitated. In no instance shall the period for approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan exceed 18 months from the date of filing of the petition.
On November 29, 2007, SASPAI and Spouses Maniwang filed before this Court their Comment 12 to the instant petition. FilCredit thereafter filed a Reply to Comment. 13 However, the contending parties no longer made any manifestation or reference anent how SASPAI's petition for rehabilitation was finally resolved by the RTC-Davao City. ScAHTI
The parties had manifested before this Court that the question of which among the assets listed in the inventory strictly belong to SASPAI had been raised before the Rehabilitation Court. In resolving the petition for rehabilitation, the RTC-Davao City must have already exercised its discretion in determining whether or not the three parcels of land in Quezon City assigned by Spouses Maniwang to SASPAI and the movables listed in the inventory should be excluded from the coverage of the proceedings before it. Alternatively, the rehabilitation proceedings may have been successfully concluded and SASPAI's creditors' claims paid, rendering the resolution of the instant petition as moot and academic.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the parties are directed, within ten (10) days from notice, to:
(1)Furnish this Court with copies of the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 10, relative to SASPAI's petition for rehabilitation filed before it; and
(2)Inform this Court in writing (a) if there are pending actions filed before any court to assail the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 10, relative to SASPAI's petition for rehabilitation, and (b) of any incident which had transpired or settlement arrived at between the parties which may have rendered as moot the resolution of the instant petition."
SO ORDERED." CEaDAc
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 14-33.
2.Id. at 35-36.
3.Id. at 37.
4.With Honorable Jose G. Paneda as Judge.
5.Rollo, pp. 158-161.
6.Id. at 107-111.
7.Id. at 101-106.
8.Id. at 189-194.
9.With Honorable Virginia Hofileña-Europa as Pairing Judge.
10.Rollo, pp. 148-150.
11.Effective December 15, 2000.
12.Rollo, pp. 286-298.
13.Id. at 302-304.