This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-06 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On March 17, 2000, Lim filed a Motion[23] informing the SEC of acts being performed by BENHAR and RUBY through directors who were illegally elected, despite the pendency of the appeal before this Court questioning the SEC approval of the BENHAR/RUBY Plan and creation of a new management committee, and after this Court had denied their motion for reconsideration of the January 20, 1998 decision in G.R. Nos. 124185-87. Lim reiterated that before the matter of extension of corporate life can be passed upon by the stockholders, it is necessary to determine the percentage ownership of the outstanding shares of the corporation. The majority stockholders claimed that they have increased their shareholdings from 59.828% to 74.75% as a result of the illegal and invalid stockholders' meeting on September 3, 1996. The additional subscription of shares cannot be done as it implements the BENHAR/RUBY Plan against which an existing injunction is still effective based on the SEC Order dated January 6, 1989, and which was struck down under the final decision of this Court in G.R. Nos. 124185-87. Hence, the implementation of the new percentage stockholdings of the majority stockholders and the calling of stockholders' meeting and the subsequent resolution approving the extension of corporate life of RUBY for another twenty-five (25) years, were all done in violation of the decisions of the CA and this Court, and without compliance with the legal requirements under the Corporation Code. There being no valid extension of corporate term, RUBY's corporate life had legally ceased. Consequently, Lim moved that the SEC: (1) declare as null and void the infusion of additional capital made by the majority stockholders and restore the capital structure of RUBY to its original structure prior to the time injunction was issued; and (2) declare as null and void the resolution of the majority stockholders extending the corporate life of RUBY for another twenty-five (25) years. | |||||
|
2007-02-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| One last word. The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is to enable the company to gain new lease on life and thereby allows creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings.[25] Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the financially distressed corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency.[26] This is in consonance with the State's objective to promote a wider and more meaningful equitable distribution of wealth to protect investments and the public.[27] The approval of the Rehabilitation Plan by the SEC Hearing Panel, affirmed by both the SEC En Banc and the Court of Appeals, is precisely in furtherance of the rationale behind P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, which is "to effect a feasible and viable rehabilitation"[28] of ailing corporations which affect the public welfare. | |||||
|
2007-01-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and solvency.[10] Presently, the applicable law on rehabilitation petitions filed by corporations, partnerships or associations,[11] including rehabilitation cases transferred from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the RTCs pursuant to Republic Act No. 8799 or the Securities Regulation Code,[12] is the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000). | |||||