Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEGROS NAVIGATION CO. v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 174457-59 2012-12-05	EXPRESS INVESTMENTS III PRIVATE LTD. v. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Rehabilitation is an attempt to conserve and administer the assets of an insolvent corporation in the hope of its eventual return from financial stress to solvency.[58] It contemplates the continuance of corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the corporation to its former position of successful operation and liquidity. The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is precisely to enable the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings.[59] Rehabilitation shall be undertaken when it is shown that the continued operation of the corporation is economically feasible and its creditors can recover, by way of the present value of payments projected in the plan, more, if the corporation continues as a going concern than if it is immediately liquidated.[60]
	GR No. 190907 2012-08-23	VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT SECURITY AGENCY v. FIRST DOMINION PRIME HOLDINGS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The justification for the suspension of actions or claims, without distinction, pending rehabilitation proceedings is to enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extrajudicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company.[27] To allow such other actions to continue would only add to the burden of the management committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in defending claims against the corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.[28] It is worthy to note that the stay order remains effective during the duration of the rehabilitation proceedings.
	GR No. 173846 2011-02-02	JOSE MARCEL PANLILIO v. RTC PERALTA, J.
To begin with, corporate rehabilitation connotes the restoration of the debtor to a position of successful operation and solvency, if it is shown that its continued operation is economically feasible and its creditors can recover more, by way of the present value of payments projected in the rehabilitation plan, if the corporation continues as a going concern than if it is immediately liquidated.[17] It 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, the purpose being to enable the company to gain a new lease on life and allow its creditors to be paid their claims out of its earnings.[18]
	GR No. 165153 2010-08-25	CARLOS DE CASTRO v. LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK BRION, J.
Given these circumstances, the existence of the Stay Order - which would generally authorize the suspension of judicial proceedings, even those pending before the Court - could not have affected the Court's action on the present case. At any rate, a stay order simply suspends all actions for claims against a corporation undergoing rehabilitation; it does not work to oust a court of its jurisdiction over a case properly filed before it.[34] Our ruling on the principal issue of the case - that de Castro had been illegally dismissed from his employment with LBNI - thus stands.
	GR No. 178768 2009-11-25	PACIFIC WIDE REALTY v. PUERTO AZUL LAND NACHURA, J.
Rehabilitation[35] 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. 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. The rehabilitation of a financially distressed corporation benefits its employees, creditors, stockholders and, in a larger sense, the general public.[36]
	GR No. 171681 2009-09-11	ABRERA v. ROMEO F. BARZA PERALTA, J.
In Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court held that "P.D. No. 902-A does not make any distinction as to what claims are covered by the suspension of actions for claims against corporations under rehabilitation x x x Thus, since the law does not make any exemptions or distinctions, neither should we."