Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIATRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. FIRST AIKKA DEVELOPMENT

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 187581 2014-10-20	PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. BASIC POLYPRINTERS BERSAMIN, J.
In Asiatrust Development Bank v. First Aikka Development, Inc.,[23] we said that rehabilitation proceedings have a two-pronged purpose, namely: (a) to efficiently and equitably distribute the assets of the insolvent debtor to its creditors; and (b) to provide the debtor with a fresh start, viz: Rehabilitation proceedings in our jurisdiction have equitable and rehabilitative purposes. On the one hand, they attempt to provide for the efficient and equitable distribution of an insolvent debtor's remaining assets to its creditors; and on the other, to provide debtors with a "fresh start" by relieving them of the weight of their outstanding debts and permitting them to reorganize their affairs. The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is to enable the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings.[24]
	GR No. 190445 2014-07-23	BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK v. SPS. ENRIQUE GABRIEL LOCSIN AND MA. GERALDINE R. LOCSIN PERALTA, J.
Indeed, it is settled that technical rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice.[37] Their strict and rigid application should be relaxed when they hinder rather than promote substantial justice.[38] Thus, as in the present case, cases should as much as possible be resolved on the merits, and not on mere technicalities.[39]
	GR No. 182072 2013-06-28	UNIVAC DEVELOPMENT v. WILLIAM M. SORIANO PERALTA, J.
Having been forced to litigate in order to seek redress of his grievances, respondent is entitled to the payment of attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of his monetary award.[39] Pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, legal interest shall be imposed on the monetary awards herein granted at the rate of 6% per annum from date of termination until full payment.[40] One final point. Petitioner claims that the instant case is covered by the stay order issued by the rehabilitation court in a rehabilitation case it earlier filed. The Court, however, takes judicial notice that in Asiatrust Development Bank v. First Aikka Development, Inc.[41] docketed as G.R. No. 179558, this Court rendered a decision on June 1, 2011 dismissing the petition for rehabilitation filed by petitioner before the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 59, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner cannot, therefore, rely on the orders issued by said court relative to its alleged rehabilitation.
	GR No. 195540 2013-03-13	GOLDENWAY MERCHANDISING CORPORATION v. EQUITABLE PCI BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Such authority to regulate businesses extends to the banking industry which, as this Court has time and again emphasized, is undeniably imbued with public interest.[34]