This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-17 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the CA assailing the said orders. On May 21, 2004, the CA agreed with the RTC that petitioner's claim is covered by the Stay Order; consequently, it dismissed the petition. It stressed that, as held in Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC,[20] Sec.6(c) of P.D. 902-A does not make any distinction as to what claims are covered. The appellate court noted that the law provides that actions for claims shall be suspended "upon appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver." It then concluded that, even if the claim were not covered by the said stay order, the suspension of petitioner's claim would still be inevitable considering that at the time the rehabilitation receiver was appointed by the SEC on January 27, 2003, petitioner's complaint was already pending before the trial court. According to the CA, to rule otherwise would defeat the very purpose of suspension of payments and render inutile the rescue functions of the management committee. | |||||
|
2007-01-29 |
|||||
| 3) Whether the CA had committed reversible error when it adopted and applied the rulings in the cases of Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc., or Julie Yap Ong v. NLRC, Marilyn F. Arellano, et. al.[19] and Rubberworld (Phils.), Inc. and Julie Y. Ong v. NLRC, Aquino Magsalin, et. al.[20] to the case at bar. | |||||