This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Fifth, on the question of the constitutionality of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation, BPI failed in its burden of clearly and unequivocally proving its assertion. Its failure to so prove defeats the challenge.[24] We even note that BPI itself opposes its own stand by invoking Section 27,[25] Rule 4 of the Interim Rules to support its prayer that the rehabilitation proceedings be declared terminated.[26] BPI also impliedly invoked the Interim Rules before the CA in seeking a modified rehabilitation plan considering that SBC's petition for approval of its rehabilitation plan had been filed under the Interim Rules. | |||||