This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Rehabilitation proceedings allow the financially stressed company "to gain a new lease on life and . . . allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings."[81] | |||||
|
2014-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This legal precept is not novel and has, in fact, been reinforced in recent decisions such as in Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Sarabia Manor Hotel Corporation,[58] where the Court elucidated the rationale behind Section 23, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules, thus:Among other rules that foster the foregoing policies, Section 23, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Interim Rules) states that a rehabilitation plan may be approved even over the opposition of the creditors holding a majority of the corporation's total liabilities if there is a showing that rehabilitation is feasible and the opposition of the creditors is manifestly unreasonable. Also known as the "cram-down" clause, this provision, which is currently incorporated in the FRIA, is necessary to curb the majority creditors' natural tendency to dictate their own terms and conditions to the rehabilitation, absent due regard to the greater long-term benefit of all stakeholders. Otherwise stated, it forces the creditors to accept the terms and conditions of the rehabilitation plan, preferring long-term viability over immediate but incomplete recovery.[59] | |||||
|
2014-01-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| While it is true that the aforementioned rule admits of certain exceptions,[26] this Court finds that none are applicable in this case. This Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC which were duly affirmed by the CA. Unanimous with the CA, this Court gives credence and accords respect to the factual findings of the RTC a special commercial court[27] which has expertise and specialized knowledge on the subject matter[28] of maritime and admiralty highlighting the solidary liability of both petitioner and ATI. The RTC judiciously found: x x x The Turn Over Survey of Bad Order Cargoes (TOSBOC, for brevity) No. 67393 and Request for Bad Order Survey No. 57692 show that prior to the turn over of the first shipment to the custody of ATI, eleven (11) of the twenty-eight (28) coils were already found in bad order condition. Eight (8) of the said eleven coils were already "partly dented/crumpled" and the remaining three (3) were found "partly dented, scratches on inner hole, crumple (sic)". On the other hand, the TOSBOC No. 67457 and Request for Bad Order Survey No. 57777 also show that prior to the turn over of the second shipment to the custody of ATI, a total of six (6) coils thereof were already "partly dented on one side, crumpled/cover detach (sic)". These documents were issued by ATI. The said TOSBOC's were jointly executed by ATI, vessel's representative and surveyor while the Requests for Bad Order Survey were jointly executed by ATI, consignee's representative and the Shed Supervisor. The aforementioned documents were corroborated by the Damage Report dated 23 September 2003 and Turn Over Survey No. 15765 for the first shipment, Damage Report dated 13 October 2003 and Turn Over Survey No. 15772 for the second shipment and, two Damage Reports dated 6 September 2003 and Turn Over Survey No. 15753 for the third shipment. | |||||