Bpi vs Eduardo Hong

7/23/2019 Bpi vs Eduardo Hong

1/5

FIRST DIVISION

BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, assuccessor-in-interest of Far East Bankan Trust !o"#an$,Petitioner,

- versus -

ED%ARDO HON&, oin' (usiness unert)e na"e an st$*e S%PER LINEPRINTIN& PRESS an t)e !O%RT OFAPPEALS,Respondents.+- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -+

DE!ISION

VILLARAA, R., J./

This petition for review on

certiorari under Rule 45 assails

the Decision012dated September

2, 2!!2 and Resolution032dated

"anuar# $2, 2!!4 of the %ourt of

&ppeals '%&( in %&-).R. SP *o.

+4$++.

n September $+, $, the /%

)roup of %ompanies '/%( 0led

a petition for suspension of

pa#ments and rehabilitation

before the Securities and

1chane %ommission 'S%(,

doc3eted as S% %ase *o. !--

5+4. & sta# order was issued on

September $, $ enoinin the

disposition in an# manner e1cept

in the ordinar# course of business

and pa#ment outside of leitimate

business e1penses durin the

pendenc# of the proceedins, and

suspendin all actions, claims and

proceedins aainst /% until

further orders from the S%.042n

December $, $, the hearin

panel approved the proposed

rehabilitation plan prepared b#

/% despite the

recommendation of the

manaement committee for the

adoption of the rehabilitation plan

prepared and submitted b# the

steerin committee of the

%onsortium of %reditor 6an3s

which appealed the order to the

%ommission.052n September $4,

$, the S% rendered itsdecision disapprovin the petition

for suspension of pa#ments,

terminatin /%s proposed

rehabilitation plan and orderin

the dissolution and li7uidation of

the petitionin corporation. The

case was remanded to the

hearin panel for li7uidation

proceedins.062n appeal b#

/%, '%&-).R. SP *o. 552!( the

%& upheld the S% rulin. /%

then 0led a petition for certiorari

before this %ourt, doc3eted as

).R. *o. $45,which case was

eventuall# dismissed under

Resolution dated 8a# 9, 2!!5

upon oint manifestation andmotion to dismiss 0led b# the

parties.072Said resolution had

become 0nal and e1ecutor# on

"une $+, 2!!5.082

Sometime in *ovember 2!!!

while the case was still pendin

with the %&, petitioner 6an3 of

the Philippine :slands '6P:(, 0led

with the ;ce of the %ler3 o

%ourt, Reional Trial %ourt o

on, an unsecured creditor o

*i3on :ndustrial %orporation, one

of the companies of /%, 0led an

action for inunction and damaes

aainst the petitioner in the same

court 'RT% of


2/5

and all claims aainst the/% )roup should be0led with the li7uidator inthe li7uidationproceedins with theS%. T)e SE!, at :)ic)t)e *i;uiation is#enin', )as2'mphasissupplied.(

&fter hearin, the trial court

issued a temporar# restrainin

order 'TR(. Petitioner 0led a

motion to dismiss01?2aruin that

b# plainti@s own alleations in the

complaint, urisdiction over the

reliefs pra#ed for belons to the

S%, and that plainti@ is actuall#

resortin to forum shoppin since

he has 0led a claim with the S%

and the desinated Ci7uidator in

the onoin li7uidation of the

/% )roup of %ompanies. :n his

pposition,0112plainti@

'respondent( asserted that the

RT% has urisdiction on the issue

of propriet# and validit# of the

foreclosure b# petitioner, in

accordance with Section $, Rule 4

of the $ Rules of %ivil

Procedure, as amended, the suit

bein in the nature of a real

action.

n "anuar# $, 2!!$, the trial

court denied the motion to

dismiss.0132Petitioners motion for

reconsideration was li3ewise

denied.0142Petitioner challened

the validit# of the trial courts

rulin before the %& viaa petition

for certiorari under Rule +5.

The %& a;rmed the trial courts

denial of petitioners motion to

dismiss. :t held that 7uestions

relatin to the validit# or lealit#

of the foreclosure proceedins,

includin an action to enoin the

same, must necessaril# be

coni=able b# the RT%,notwithstandin that the S%

li3ewise possesses the power to

issue inunction in all cases in

which it has urisdiction as

provided in Sec. + 'a( of

Presidential Decree 'P.D.( *o. !2-

&. Burther, the %& stated that an

action for foreclosure of mortae

and all incidents relative thereto

includin its validit# or invalidit#

is within the urisdiction of the

RT% and is not amon those cases

over which the S% e1ercises

e1clusive and oriinal urisdiction

under Sec. 5 of P.D. *o. !2

&. %onse7uentl#, no rave abuse

of discretion was committed b#

the trial court in issuin the

assailed orders.

ith the %&s denial of its motion

for reconsideration, petitioner is

now before this %ourt raisin thesole issue of whether the RT% can

ta3e coni=ance of the inunction

suit despite the pendenc# of S%

%ase *o. !--5+4.

The petition has no merit.

"urisdiction is de0ned as the

power and authorit# of a court to

hear and decide a case.0152&

courts urisdiction over the

subect matter of the action is

conferred onl# b# the %onstitution

or b# statute.0162The nature of an

action and the subect matte

thereof, as well as which court o

aenc# of the overnment hasurisdiction over the same, are

determined b# the materia

alleations of the complaint in

relation to the law involved and

the character of the reliefs pra#ed

for, whether or not the

complainantEplainti@ is entitled to

an# or all of such reliefs.0172&nd
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/february2012/161771.htm#_ftn16


3/5

urisdiction bein a matter of

substantive law, the established

rule is that the statute in force at

the time of the commencement of

the action determines the

urisdiction of the court.0182

Perusal of the complaint reveals

that respondent does not as3 the

trial court to rule on its interest or

claim -- as an unsecured creditor

of two companies under /%

-- aainst the latters properties

mortaed to petitioner. The

complaint principall# see3s toenoin the foreclosure proceedins

initiated b# petitioner over those

properties on the round

that such properties are held in

trust and placed under the

urisdiction of the appointed

Ci7uidator in S% %ase *o. !--

5+4. Thus, %ivil %ase *o. 94-


4/5

involvin petitions for suspension

of pa#ments or rehabilitation

ma#, motu proprio,or on motion

b# an# interested part#, or on the

basis of the 0ndins and

recommendation of the

8anaement %ommittee that the

continuance in business of the

debtor is no loner feasible or

pro0table, or no loner wor3s to

the best interest of the

stoc3holders, parties-litiants,

creditors, or the eneral public,

order the dissolution of the debtor

and the li7uidation of itsremainin assets appointin a

Ci7uidator for the purpose.03?2The

debtors properties are then

deemed to have been conve#ed

to the Ci7uidator in trust for the

bene0t of creditors, stoc3holders

and other persons in interest. This

notwithstandin, an# lien or

preference to an# propert# shall

be reconi=ed b# the Ci7uidator in

favor of the securit# or lienholder,

to the e1tent allowed b# law, in

the implementation of the

li7uidation plan.0312

>owever, R.&. *o. , which

too3 e@ect on &uust , 2!!!,transferred to the appropriate

reional trial courts the S%s

urisdiction over those cases

enumerated in Sec. 5 of P.D. *o.

!2-&. Section 5.2 of R.&. *o.

provides?

S%. 5.2 The %ommissionsurisdiction over all casesenumerated underSection 5 of PresidentialDecree *o. !2-& ishereb# transferred to the%ourts of eneralurisdiction or theappropriate Reional Trial%ourt? rovided, that theSupreme %ourt in thee1ercise of its authorit#ma# desinatetheReional Trial %ourtbranches that shalle1ercise urisdiction overthese cases. The%ommission shall retainurisdiction over pendincases involvin intra-corporate disputessubmitted for 0nalresolution which shouldbe resolved within one '$(#ear from the enactment

of this %ode. T)e!o""ission s)a**retain


5/5

preferences.0342'mphasissupplied.(

There is no showin in the records

that S% %ase *o. !--5+4

had been transferred to the

appropriate RT% desinated as

Special %ommercial %ourt at the

time of the commencement of the

inunction suit on December $,

2!!!. )iven the urenc# of the

situation and the pro1imit# of the

scheduled public auction of the

mortaed properties as per the

*otice of Sheri@s Sale,

respondent was constrained to

see3 relief from the same court

havin urisdiction over the

foreclosure proceedins RT% of

Documents

Bpi vs Eduardo Hong