This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari[1] in G.R. Nos. 174457-59 was filed by Express Investments III Private Ltd. and Export Development Canada to assail the August 18, 2006 Decision[2] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87203. | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Thereafter, on November 30, 2004, petitioners Express Investments III Private Ltd. and Export Development Canada along with Bayerische Landesbank (Singapore Branch), Credit Industriel et Commercial, Deutsche Bank AG, P.T. Bank Negara Indonesia (Persero), TBK, Hong Kong Branch and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation filed a Petition for Review[33] which was docketed as CA-G.R. No. 87203 in the Tenth Division of the Court of Appeals. The secured creditors likewise assailed the Rehabilitation Court's June 28, 2004 Decision insofar as it ordered the pari passu treatment of all claims against Bayantel. Said petitioners invoke a lien over the cash flow and receivables of Bayantel by virtue of the Assignment Agreement. | |||||
|
2012-12-05 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On October 19, 2006, Express Investments III Private Ltd. and Export Development Canada[44] filed a Petition for Partial Review on Certiorari which was docketed as G.R. Nos. 174457-59. Said petition, which seeks the reversal of the August 18, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals insofar as it dismissed the petition of the secured creditors in CA-G.R. SP No. 87203, essentially proffers the following issues for resolution: (1) whether the claims of secured and unsecured creditors should be treated pari passu during rehabilitation; (2) whether the pari passu treatment of creditors during rehabilitation impairs the Assignment Agreement between respondent and petitioners; (3) whether an impairment in the security position of petitioners can be justified as a valid exercise of police power. | |||||