Tag: Creditors’ Rights

Corporate Rehabilitation: Mootness of Disputes After Successful Rehabilitation

The Supreme Court decision in Deutsche Bank AG vs. Kormasinc, Inc. addresses the legal standing of disputes within corporate rehabilitation proceedings after the successful completion of rehabilitation. The Court ruled that once a company successfully exits corporate rehabilitation, any pending disputes related to the rehabilitation become moot. This means that courts will no longer decide these disputes because the issues have been resolved by the successful rehabilitation, rendering any judicial determination without practical effect or value.

From Financial Distress to Renewal: The Mootness Doctrine in Corporate Rehabilitation

The case stems from Vitarich Corporation’s petition for corporate rehabilitation due to financial difficulties. As part of its operations, Vitarich had entered into a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) with several banks to secure loans, with Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) acting as trustee. Kormasinc, Inc., as successor-in-interest to RCBC, a secured creditor of Vitarich, disagreed with the appointment of a new MTI trustee, arguing it was unnecessary given the rehabilitation receiver’s role. This disagreement led Kormasinc to file a motion requesting the rehabilitation receiver to take control of the MTI properties, which was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC’s decision, prompting appeals to the Supreme Court. However, while the case was pending with the Supreme Court, Vitarich successfully completed its corporate rehabilitation, leading to the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings and the discharge of the rehabilitation receiver. Kormasinc then manifested its intent to withdraw the case, arguing it had become moot. This set the stage for the Supreme Court to address the issue of mootness in the context of corporate rehabilitation.

The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the successful completion of Vitarich’s corporate rehabilitation rendered the pending disputes regarding the control and possession of the MTI properties moot. The Court addressed the concept of mootness. According to the Court, a case becomes moot when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy due to supervening events, making any judicial declaration devoid of practical value.

The Supreme Court, in its decision, heavily relied on the principle that courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases due to the absence of a live controversy. This principle is rooted in the judiciary’s role to resolve actual disputes and not to issue advisory opinions. The Court noted that the termination of Vitarich’s rehabilitation proceedings, by order of the rehabilitation court, effectively resolved the underlying issues that had given rise to the dispute. The Court cited Deutsche Bank AG v. Court of Appeals, stating:

A moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. As a rule, courts decline jurisdiction over such a case, or dismiss it on ground of mootness.

In this instance, with Vitarich’s successful exit from rehabilitation and the discharge of the rehabilitation receiver, there was no longer any practical reason to determine who should control the MTI properties. The rehabilitation process, designed to restore Vitarich’s financial health, had been successfully completed, rendering the question of property control academic.

The Court emphasized that the purpose of corporate rehabilitation is to enable a financially distressed company to regain its viability. Once this goal is achieved and the rehabilitation proceedings are terminated, the legal framework governing the rehabilitation, including the powers and duties of the rehabilitation receiver, ceases to apply. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that judicial resources should be directed towards resolving actual, ongoing controversies rather than addressing issues that have been effectively resolved by the parties or by supervening events.

The Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) of 2010 outlines the powers, duties, and responsibilities of a rehabilitation receiver. Specifically, Section 31(e) of RA 10142 states that the receiver has the duty:

To take possession, custody and control, and to preserve the value of all the property of the debtor.

The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that the powers granted to the rehabilitation receiver under FRIA are intrinsically linked to the ongoing rehabilitation process. Once the rehabilitation is successfully completed, the receiver’s role terminates, and with it, the need to determine the extent of their control over the debtor’s assets.

This decision has important implications for creditors, debtors, and other stakeholders involved in corporate rehabilitation proceedings. The ruling underscores the importance of the rehabilitation process and the need to focus on achieving a successful rehabilitation outcome. It also suggests that disputes arising during rehabilitation should be resolved promptly to avoid the risk of mootness upon the successful completion of the process.

The Court’s decision highlights the legal principle that courts should refrain from resolving issues that no longer present a live controversy. This principle is grounded in the notion that judicial resources should be used efficiently and effectively to address actual disputes. The decision also serves as a reminder to parties involved in corporate rehabilitation proceedings to pursue their claims diligently and to seek timely resolution of disputes to avoid the risk of mootness.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether disputes regarding control of a company’s assets during corporate rehabilitation become moot once the rehabilitation is successfully completed.
What does “mootness” mean in legal terms?	Mootness refers to a situation where a case no longer presents a live controversy because of events that have occurred after the case was filed, making a judicial decision irrelevant.
What is a Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI)?	An MTI is a legal agreement where a company mortgages its assets to a trustee to secure loans from various creditors, who then receive mortgage participation certificates.
What is the role of a rehabilitation receiver?	A rehabilitation receiver is appointed by the court to manage a company’s assets and operations during rehabilitation, with the goal of restoring the company to financial viability.
What happens to the rehabilitation receiver’s powers after successful rehabilitation?	Once the rehabilitation is successful and the proceedings are terminated, the rehabilitation receiver’s powers and duties are discharged, as the company is no longer under court supervision.
What is the significance of Section 31(e) of the FRIA?	Section 31(e) of the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) grants the rehabilitation receiver the power to take control of the debtor’s property to preserve its value during rehabilitation.
How does this ruling affect creditors in corporate rehabilitation?	The ruling implies that creditors need to pursue their claims and resolve disputes promptly during the rehabilitation process to avoid the risk of their claims becoming moot upon successful completion.
What was the outcome of Vitarich Corporation’s rehabilitation?	Vitarich Corporation successfully completed its corporate rehabilitation, leading to the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings and the discharge of the rehabilitation receiver.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Deutsche Bank AG vs. Kormasinc, Inc. provides clarity on the issue of mootness in the context of corporate rehabilitation. It reinforces the principle that judicial resources should be directed towards resolving live controversies and underscores the importance of the rehabilitation process in restoring the financial health of distressed companies.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Deutsche Bank AG vs. Kormasinc, Inc., G.R. No. 201777, April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

Corporate Rehabilitation vs. Foreclosure: Determining the Commencement Date Under FRIA

The Supreme Court ruled that a foreclosure sale completed before the commencement date of corporate rehabilitation proceedings under the Financial Rehabilitation and Insolvency Act (FRIA) is valid. This means that if a company’s assets are foreclosed and the ownership is transferred to the creditor before the company files for rehabilitation, the creditor rightfully owns the assets and is no longer considered a creditor in the rehabilitation process. The decision emphasizes the importance of determining the exact commencement date of rehabilitation proceedings to protect the rights of creditors who have already taken legal action to recover debts.

When Does Corporate Rehabilitation Trump Prior Foreclosure?

This case revolves around Polillo Paradise Island Corporation (PPIC), which obtained loans from Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) secured by mortgages on its properties. After PPIC defaulted on its loans, LBP foreclosed the properties and consolidated ownership in its name. Subsequently, PPIC filed for corporate rehabilitation. The central legal question is whether the corporate rehabilitation proceedings should retroactively nullify the foreclosure, effectively restoring the properties to PPIC and reinstating LBP as a creditor. The resolution of this issue hinges on correctly identifying the “commencement date” under the FRIA and determining whether the consolidation of ownership occurred before or after that date.

The core of the legal analysis lies in interpreting Section 17 of the FRIA, which defines the effects of a Commencement Order in corporate rehabilitation cases. This section dictates that the Commencement Order, once issued, can invalidate certain actions taken against the debtor after the commencement date. Specifically, Section 17(b) states:

Section 17. Effects of the Commencement Order. – Unless otherwise provided for in this Act, the court’s issuance of a Commencement Order shall, in addition to the effects of a Stay or Suspension Order described in Section 16 hereof:

(b) prohibit or otherwise serve as the legal basis rendering null and void the results of any extrajudicial activity or process to seize property, sell encumbered property, or otherwise attempt to collect on or enforce a claim against the debtor after commencement date unless otherwise allowed in this Act, subject to the provisions of Section 50 hereof;

The Supreme Court emphasized that the “commencement date” is the date of filing the petition for corporate rehabilitation, whether voluntary or involuntary, making the accurate determination of this date crucial. In this case, there was confusion regarding the actual filing date, with LBP initially claiming it was August 17, 2012. However, the Court clarified, based on official records, that the original petition was filed on August 22, 2012, but it was subsequently dismissed. The operative petition was the amended petition filed on October 18, 2012, making this the correct commencement date for the rehabilitation proceedings.

Building on this clarification, the Court then examined when LBP consolidated its ownership of the foreclosed properties. The Certificate of Sale was registered on August 22, 2011, establishing the one-year redemption period. Since PPIC failed to redeem the properties within this period, LBP’s ownership was consolidated on August 22, 2012. This date is critical because it precedes the filing of the amended petition for corporate rehabilitation on October 18, 2012.

The Supreme Court underscored the legal principle that ownership vests in the purchaser after the redemption period expires without the debtor redeeming the property. As highlighted in Spouses Gallent, Jr. v. Velasquez, 784 Phil. 44, 58 (2016):

the purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property becomes the absolute owner of the property if no redemption is made within one year from the registration of the Certificate of Sale by those entitled to redeem.

Therefore, LBP became the absolute owner of the properties before the commencement of the rehabilitation proceedings. Consequently, the Court concluded that the foreclosure sale and the transfer of ownership to LBP were valid and not affected by the subsequent rehabilitation case. Furthermore, LBP was no longer considered a creditor of PPIC because the debt was effectively extinguished by the foreclosure.

The implications of this decision are significant for creditors and debtors involved in foreclosure and rehabilitation proceedings. The ruling clarifies that the FRIA’s protective measures for debtors do not retroactively invalidate completed foreclosure sales where ownership has already been consolidated with the creditor. This provides certainty for creditors who have diligently pursued their legal remedies and ensures that their property rights are respected. It also underscores the importance of debtors acting promptly when facing financial difficulties, as delays can result in the loss of assets through foreclosure before rehabilitation proceedings can offer protection.

A key point to consider is the effect of the foreclosure sale on the debtor’s outstanding obligations. In this case, LBP issued a certification stating that PPIC’s debt was fully paid due to the foreclosure sale. This acknowledgment further solidified the Court’s position that LBP was no longer a creditor of PPIC. The Court, therefore, reversed the RTC’s orders, affirming the validity of the foreclosure and recognizing LBP’s ownership of the properties.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the commencement order in corporate rehabilitation proceedings could invalidate a foreclosure sale where ownership was consolidated with the creditor before the rehabilitation petition was filed.
What is the “commencement date” under the FRIA?	The “commencement date” is the date on which the court issues the Commencement Order, which is retroactive to the date of filing the petition for voluntary or involuntary proceedings, as per Section 4(d) of the FRIA.
When did Land Bank consolidate ownership of the properties?	Land Bank consolidated ownership of the properties on August 22, 2012, after PPIC failed to redeem the properties within one year from the registration of the Certificate of Sale.
Why was the amended petition’s filing date important?	The amended petition’s filing date of October 18, 2012, was crucial because the Court determined it as the operative date for the commencement of rehabilitation proceedings after the initial petition was dismissed.
What does Section 17 of the FRIA say?	Section 17 of the FRIA outlines the effects of the Commencement Order, including the prohibition of extrajudicial activities to seize property or enforce claims against the debtor after the commencement date.
How did the foreclosure sale affect PPIC’s debt?	The foreclosure sale resulted in the full payment of PPIC’s debt to Land Bank, as certified by the bank, effectively extinguishing the debtor-creditor relationship.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court ruled that the foreclosure sale was valid because Land Bank consolidated ownership of the properties before the commencement date of the corporate rehabilitation proceedings.
What is the implication of this ruling for creditors?	The ruling provides certainty for creditors by affirming that completed foreclosure sales are not retroactively invalidated by subsequent rehabilitation proceedings, protecting their property rights.
What is the implication of this ruling for debtors?	The ruling underscores the importance of debtors acting promptly when facing financial difficulties, as delays can result in the loss of assets through foreclosure before rehabilitation proceedings can offer protection.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case clarifies the interplay between foreclosure and corporate rehabilitation under the FRIA. By emphasizing the significance of the commencement date and the validity of property transfers occurring before that date, the Court provides valuable guidance for both creditors and debtors navigating complex financial situations. This ruling ensures that the rights of creditors are protected while still allowing debtors the opportunity to rehabilitate their businesses when appropriate.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. POLILLO PARADISE ISLAND CORPORATION, G.R. No. 211537, December 10, 2019

March 29, 2021

Understanding Jurisdiction in Bank Liquidation: A Guide to Filing Claims Against Closed Banks in the Philippines
The Importance of Filing Claims in the Proper Court During Bank Liquidation

Hermosa Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222972, February 10, 2021

Imagine you’re a depositor in a bank that suddenly closes. You’ve worked hard for your money, and now you’re unsure if you’ll ever see it again. This is the reality for many when a bank fails, and the legal process to recover your funds can be complex. The case of Hermosa Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. versus Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) sheds light on the crucial issue of where to file claims against a closed bank. The central question is whether the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that initially handled a case retains jurisdiction when the bank enters liquidation.

In this case, DBP had filed a complaint against Hermosa Bank for a significant sum of money before the bank was placed under liquidation. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarified the jurisdiction over such claims, emphasizing the need for all claims to be consolidated in one court to prevent multiple lawsuits and ensure fairness among creditors.

Legal Context: Jurisdiction and Liquidation Under Philippine Law

Under Philippine law, the process of bank liquidation is governed by Republic Act No. 7653, also known as the New Central Bank Act. This law outlines the procedure when a bank is unable to pay its liabilities, has insufficient assets, or cannot continue business without probable losses to depositors or creditors.

Section 30 of RA 7653 is particularly relevant to this case. It states that the liquidation court has jurisdiction over all claims against the bank. This section aims to streamline the liquidation process by centralizing all claims in one court, thus preventing the chaos of multiple lawsuits and ensuring an orderly resolution of the bank’s affairs.

The term jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide a case. In the context of bank liquidation, it’s crucial to understand that the court handling the liquidation has exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the bank, regardless of when those claims were filed.

For example, if a depositor wants to recover their money from a closed bank, they must file their claim with the liquidation court, not with any other court that might have previously handled a related case. This ensures that all claims are treated equitably and that the liquidation process is efficient.

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Hermosa Bank and DBP

The saga of Hermosa Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. and the Development Bank of the Philippines began when DBP filed a complaint against Hermosa Bank and its officers for failing to remit amortizations on loans obtained through the Industrial Guarantee and Loan Fund (IGLF).

The initial complaint was filed on September 25, 2001, with the RTC of Makati City. However, in February 2005, the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) closed Hermosa Bank and placed it under receivership with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as the receiver.

Subsequently, PDIC filed a petition for assistance in the liquidation of Hermosa Bank with the RTC of Dinalupihan, Bataan, which became the liquidation court. Hermosa Bank and its officers moved to dismiss the original complaint filed by DBP, arguing that the liquidation court had exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the bank.

The RTC of Makati initially dismissed the complaint, but upon DBP’s motion for reconsideration, it was reinstated. However, after the case was re-raffled to another branch of the RTC in Makati, the complaint was dismissed again, prompting DBP to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA reversed the RTC’s decision, ruling that the original court retained jurisdiction over the case. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the rule on adherence of jurisdiction is not absolute and that the change in jurisdiction mandated by RA 7653 was curative in character.

Here are key quotes from the Supreme Court’s decision:
- “The rationale for consolidating all claims against the bank with the liquidation court is to prevent multiplicity of actions against the insolvent bank and to establish due process and orderliness in the liquidation of the bank, to obviate the proliferation of litigations and to avoid injustice and arbitrariness.”
- “It is of no moment that the complaint was filed by DBP before the Hermosa Bank was placed under receivership. The time of the filing of the complaint is immaterial as it is the execution that will obviously prejudice the bank’s other depositors and creditors.”
Practical Implications: Navigating Bank Liquidation Claims

This ruling has significant implications for creditors and depositors of closed banks. It underscores the importance of filing claims with the liquidation court to ensure they are considered alongside other claims in a fair and orderly manner.

For businesses and individuals dealing with closed banks, it’s crucial to monitor the status of the bank and promptly file claims with the designated liquidation court once it is appointed. Failure to do so could result in the loss of priority or even the dismissal of the claim.

Key Lessons:
- Always file claims against a closed bank with the liquidation court, even if a related case was filed before the bank’s closure.
- Understand that the liquidation court has exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the bank to prevent multiple lawsuits and ensure fairness.
- Be proactive in monitoring the status of a bank in distress and act quickly to file claims once the liquidation court is appointed.
Frequently Asked Questions

What should I do if my bank is closed and I have a claim against it?

File your claim with the liquidation court appointed to handle the bank’s liquidation. This ensures your claim is considered alongside others in an orderly manner.

Can I continue a lawsuit against a bank that has been placed under liquidation?

No, any ongoing lawsuits against a bank placed under liquidation should be transferred to the liquidation court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the bank.

What happens if I file my claim with the wrong court?

Your claim may be dismissed or not considered in the liquidation process, potentially resulting in the loss of your claim’s priority.

How does the liquidation court prioritize claims?

The liquidation court follows the rules on concurrence and preference of credit under the Civil Code of the Philippines to prioritize claims.

What if I have a claim against the officers of the closed bank?

The liquidation court also has the authority to adjudicate claims against the bank’s officers, ensuring all related claims are resolved in one venue.

Can I recover my money if the bank is liquidated?

Recovery depends on the bank’s assets and the priority of your claim. It’s important to file your claim promptly and accurately.

How can I stay informed about the liquidation process?

Monitor updates from the liquidation court and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), which typically oversees the liquidation of banks.

ASG Law specializes in banking and finance law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.
February 10, 2021
Understanding the Trust Fund Doctrine: When Can Creditors Pursue Shareholders for Unpaid Corporate Debts?
Key Takeaway: The Trust Fund Doctrine and Shareholder Liability

Enano-Bote, et al. v. Alvarez, et al., G.R. No. 223572, November 10, 2020

Imagine a business owner who, after years of hard work, faces the daunting prospect of their company’s insolvency. The creditors are knocking at the door, demanding payment for debts accrued over time. In such scenarios, the legal concept of the trust fund doctrine becomes crucial. This doctrine can determine whether shareholders can be held personally liable for the company’s unpaid debts. The case of Enano-Bote, et al. v. Alvarez, et al., offers a compelling exploration of this principle, shedding light on the circumstances under which creditors can pursue shareholders for unpaid corporate debts.

In this case, the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) sought to recover unpaid lease rentals from Centennial Air, Inc. (CAIR), a corporation that had defaulted on its obligations. The central legal question was whether the shareholders of CAIR could be held personally liable for these debts under the trust fund doctrine, which posits that a corporation’s capital stock is a trust fund for the payment of its creditors.

The Trust Fund Doctrine: A Legal Lifeline for Creditors

The trust fund doctrine, first articulated in the American case of Wood v. Dummer and adopted in the Philippines in Philippine Trust Co. v. Rivera, is a principle that safeguards creditors’ rights. It establishes that subscriptions to a corporation’s capital stock constitute a fund to which creditors can look for satisfaction of their claims, particularly when the corporation is insolvent or dissolved without settling its debts.

Under Philippine law, the Corporation Code (Section 63) stipulates the requirements for the valid transfer of shares, which include the delivery of the stock certificate, endorsement by the owner, and recording in the corporation’s books. This legal framework ensures that creditors can pursue unpaid subscriptions if these conditions are not met.

Consider a scenario where a company, struggling to stay afloat, attempts to release its shareholders from their obligations without proper legal procedures. The trust fund doctrine empowers creditors to step into the shoes of the corporation and recover these unpaid subscriptions, ensuring that the company’s assets remain available to settle outstanding debts.

Here’s a direct quote from the doctrine’s application: “It is established doctrine that subscriptions to the capital of a corporation constitute a fund to which creditors have a right to look for satisfaction of their claims and that the assignee in insolvency can maintain an action upon any unpaid stock subscription in order to realize assets for the payment of its debts.”

Unraveling the Enano-Bote Case: A Journey Through the Courts

The Enano-Bote case began when SBMA filed a complaint against CAIR and its shareholders for unpaid lease rentals amounting to US$163,341.89. The shareholders argued that they had transferred their shares to Jose Ch. Alvarez, who had assumed responsibility for their unpaid subscriptions. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) held the shareholders personally liable based on the trust fund doctrine.

The shareholders’ journey through the legal system was marked by several key events:
- February 3, 1999: CAIR entered into a lease agreement with SBMA for a property at Subic Bay International Airport.
- November 9, 1999: SBMA sent a demand letter to CAIR for unpaid obligations amounting to P119,324.51.
- January 14, 2004: SBMA terminated the lease agreement due to CAIR’s continued default.
- April 8, 2014: The RTC ruled that CAIR and its shareholders were jointly and severally liable to SBMA.
- September 21, 2015: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision, applying the trust fund doctrine.
The Supreme Court, however, reversed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that the trust fund doctrine could not be invoked without proving CAIR’s insolvency or dissolution. The Court stated, “To make out a prima facie case in a suit against stockholders of an insolvent corporation to compel them to contribute to the payment of its debts by making good unpaid balances upon their subscriptions, it is only necessary to establish that the stockholders have not in good faith paid the par value of the stocks of the corporation.”

Another critical quote from the Supreme Court’s ruling is, “The trust fund doctrine is not limited to reaching the stockholder’s unpaid subscriptions. The scope of the doctrine when the corporation is insolvent encompasses not only the capital stock, but also other property and assets generally regarded in equity as a trust fund for the payment of corporate debts.”

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

The Enano-Bote case underscores the importance of understanding the trust fund doctrine’s application in corporate insolvency. For businesses, it highlights the need to manage their financial obligations carefully and ensure that any transfer of shares complies with legal requirements.

For creditors, the ruling emphasizes the necessity of proving insolvency or dissolution to invoke the trust fund doctrine successfully. This case serves as a reminder that shareholders cannot be held personally liable for corporate debts without meeting specific legal criteria.

Key Lessons:
- Ensure compliance with legal requirements for share transfers to protect against personal liability.
- Creditors must demonstrate a corporation’s insolvency or dissolution to pursue shareholders under the trust fund doctrine.
- Business owners should be cautious about releasing shareholders from their obligations without proper legal procedures.
Frequently Asked Questions

What is the trust fund doctrine?

The trust fund doctrine is a legal principle that treats a corporation’s capital stock as a trust fund for the payment of its creditors, particularly in cases of insolvency or dissolution.

Can shareholders be held personally liable for corporate debts?

Shareholders can be held personally liable for corporate debts under the trust fund doctrine if the corporation is insolvent or dissolved without settling its debts, and the shareholders have not paid the full value of their subscriptions.

What are the requirements for a valid transfer of shares?

A valid transfer of shares requires the delivery of the stock certificate, endorsement by the owner, and recording in the corporation’s books, as stipulated in Section 63 of the Corporation Code.

How can creditors pursue unpaid subscriptions?

Creditors can pursue unpaid subscriptions by stepping into the shoes of the corporation and seeking recovery from shareholders, provided they can demonstrate the corporation’s insolvency or dissolution.

What should businesses do to protect against personal liability?

Businesses should ensure that all share transfers are legally compliant and maintain accurate records of shareholders’ subscriptions to avoid personal liability under the trust fund doctrine.

ASG Law specializes in corporate law and insolvency. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation and navigate the complexities of shareholder liability and corporate debt.
November 10, 2020

Prescription of Mortgage Actions: The Imperative of Maturity Date in Foreclosure Cases

The Supreme Court ruled that for an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage (REM) to prosper, the creditor-mortgagee must establish the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract, particularly the maturity date of the loan secured. The failure to allege and prove these details renders the action dismissible. This decision clarifies that the prescriptive period for mortgage actions begins when the loan becomes due and demandable or from the date of demand, not merely from the date of the mortgage’s inscription on the title.

Unraveling Mortgage Prescription: When Does the Clock Start Ticking?

This case, Philippine National Bank vs. Elenita V. Abello, et al., revolves around a complaint filed by the respondents seeking the cancellation of mortgage liens annotated on their Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs). The respondents argued that the petitioner, Philippine National Bank (PNB), had not taken action to foreclose the mortgages since 1975, and therefore, the action had prescribed. The central legal question is whether the respondents sufficiently established the prescription of the mortgage action to warrant the cancellation of the encumbrances.

The factual backdrop involves several real estate mortgages constituted by Spouses Manuel and Elenita Abello in favor of PNB between 1963 and 1975. These mortgages were annotated on TCT Nos. T-127632, T-82974, and T-58311. After Manuel Abello’s death in 1998, his heirs filed a complaint seeking the cancellation of these encumbrances, arguing that PNB’s inaction for an extended period had resulted in the prescription of the mortgage action. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) initially ruled in favor of the respondents, ordering the cancellation of the mortgage liens. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, holding that the respondents failed to adequately demonstrate that the mortgage action had prescribed.

The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of cause of action.” Failure to state a cause of action pertains to the insufficiency of allegations in the pleading, while lack of cause of action refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. The Court explained that a complaint should contain an averment of three essential elements: a right in favor of the plaintiff, an obligation on the part of the defendant, and an act or omission by the defendant violating the plaintiff’s right. In this case, the Court found that the respondents’ complaint lacked critical details necessary to establish their cause of action.

Building on this principle, the Court clarified that determining the commencement of the prescriptive period for REMs is crucial in establishing a cause of action. The prescriptive period runs from the time the loan became due and demandable, or from the date of demand. This is rooted in the accessory nature of a REM, which secures the principal contract of loan. The right to foreclose arises only upon the debtor’s failure to pay, triggering the operation of the mortgage contract. Therefore, the creditor-mortgagee must allege and prove the terms and conditions of the mortgage contract, including the maturity date of the loan.

The Court cited Mercene v. Government Service Insurance System to reinforce that prescription in a mortgage contract does not begin from the time of its execution but from when the loan becomes due and demandable, or from the date of demand. This ruling underscores the importance of establishing when the debtor defaulted on the loan obligation. Without this information, the mortgagor cannot successfully argue for the cancellation of the mortgage encumbrances.

Art. 1169. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation. However, the demand by the creditor shall not be necessary in order that delay may exist:

(1) When the obligation or the law expressly so declare; or
(2) When from the nature and the circumstances of the obligation it appears that the designation of the time when the thing is to be delivered or the service is to be rendered was a controlling motive for the establishment of the contract; or
(3) When demand would be useless, as when the obligor has rendered it beyond his power to perform.

In analyzing the respondents’ complaint, the Court noted the absence of any mention of the loan’s particulars, specifically the maturity date. The respondents anchored their argument on the date of the latest entry related to the loan, which the Court deemed irrelevant. The critical detail for determining prescription is the date of maturity or demand, which was not provided in the complaint. Consequently, the Court concluded that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.

Furthermore, the Court noted that although the petitioner had raised the failure to state a cause of action as an affirmative defense, the RTC’s power to dismiss on this ground had lapsed when the parties proceeded to trial. However, even during trial, the respondents failed to present evidence establishing when the loan became due. This failure to adduce sufficient evidence to establish prescription led the Court to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action. The contracts evidencing the loan and mortgage were crucial to the respondents’ case, and their absence proved fatal.

The implications of this decision are significant for both mortgagors and mortgagees. Mortgagors seeking to cancel mortgage liens based on prescription must provide concrete evidence of the loan’s maturity date or the date of demand. Mortgagees, on the other hand, must meticulously maintain records of loan terms and any demands made to ensure their right to foreclose is preserved. The absence of such records could jeopardize their ability to enforce the mortgage contract.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the respondents sufficiently established the prescription of a mortgage action to warrant the cancellation of encumbrances on their property titles. The Supreme Court found that they did not.
What is the difference between “failure to state a cause of action” and “lack of cause of action”?	“Failure to state a cause of action” refers to the insufficiency of allegations in the pleading, while “lack of cause of action” refers to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. The former is determined based on the complaint’s averments, while the latter is determined after considering the evidence presented during trial.
When does the prescriptive period for a real estate mortgage begin to run?	The prescriptive period begins to run from the time the loan becomes due and demandable, or from the date of demand. It does not begin from the date of the mortgage’s execution or inscription.
What evidence is necessary to prove that a mortgage action has prescribed?	To prove prescription, the mortgagor must present evidence establishing the maturity date of the loan or the date of demand. This information is crucial for determining when the prescriptive period began to run.
Why was the respondents’ complaint dismissed in this case?	The respondents’ complaint was dismissed because they failed to allege the maturity date of the loan and failed to present evidence during trial to establish when the loan became due. This made the action dismissable for the failure to state the cause of action.
*What is the significance of the case of Mercene v. Government Service Insurance System?*	Mercene v. GSIS reinforces that the prescriptive period for REMs begins when the loan becomes due and demandable or from the date of demand, not merely from the mortgage’s execution. This highlights the importance of establishing the date of default.
What happens if a complaint fails to state a cause of action?	A complaint that fails to state a cause of action can be dismissed by the court. This is a procedural remedy to resolve a complaint without incurring the costs of a full trial.
Is the date of annotation of the mortgage relevant to determining prescription?	No, the date of annotation is not relevant to determining prescription. The crucial dates are when the loan became due and demandable or when demand was made.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Philippine National Bank vs. Elenita V. Abello, et al. emphasizes the critical importance of establishing the loan’s maturity date or the date of demand when arguing for the prescription of a mortgage action. This ruling provides clarity on the necessary elements for a successful claim and underscores the need for meticulous record-keeping by both mortgagors and mortgagees.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Philippine National Bank, vs. Elenita V. Abello, G.R. No. 242570, September 18, 2019

September 18, 2019

Navigating Corporate Distress: When Can a Creditor Sue Despite Rehabilitation Proceedings?

The Supreme Court has clarified that a creditor’s right to sue a debtor corporation is not always suspended by corporate rehabilitation proceedings. This case underscores that while rehabilitation aims to protect distressed companies, it doesn’t automatically strip creditors of their legal recourse, especially when challenging fraudulent transactions. The ruling emphasizes the importance of balancing the interests of the debtor and the rights of creditors, ensuring that rehabilitation is not used as a shield for illicit activities. This distinction is critical for creditors seeking to recover debts from companies undergoing rehabilitation or liquidation.

The Alleged Fraudulent Conveyance: Union Bank’s Fight Against EYCO and FEBTC

This case revolves around a complex financial dispute involving Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC), Union Bank of the Philippines, and the EYCO Group of Companies. The central issue is whether Union Bank could pursue a case against EYCO and FEBTC in a regular court, given that EYCO had already filed for suspension of payments with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Union Bank alleged that EYCO, in collusion with FEBTC, fraudulently transferred assets to prevent them from being levied upon to satisfy EYCO’s debts. This led Union Bank to file a case seeking to rescind the sale of certain properties from EYCO to FEBTC.

The case started when EYCO filed a petition for suspension of payments with the SEC. Subsequently, Union Bank, one of EYCO’s creditors, filed a separate case in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to annul the sale of properties from EYCO to FEBTC, claiming it was a fraudulent conveyance. FEBTC and EYCO argued that the RTC case should be dismissed due to the pending SEC proceedings and that Union Bank lacked the legal standing to sue because a Management Committee (MANCOM) had been appointed to oversee EYCO’s rehabilitation. The RTC initially agreed, dismissing Union Bank’s case, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, leading FEBTC to appeal to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the matter was whether the principle of litis pendentia applied. This legal principle prevents multiple lawsuits involving the same parties and issues. The Supreme Court had to determine if the SEC case and the RTC case were indeed the same, which would require an identity of parties, rights asserted, and reliefs sought. As the Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented, it noted several key differences between the two cases.

Building on this principle, the Court considered the issue of forum shopping, which occurs when a party repetitively avails themselves of several judicial remedies in different courts, based on the same transactions and facts. FEBTC argued that Union Bank was guilty of forum shopping by pursuing the RTC case while the SEC proceedings were ongoing. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that the issues and reliefs sought in the two cases were distinct.

The Supreme Court also addressed FEBTC’s contention that Union Bank lacked the legal personality to file the RTC case, arguing that the authority to pursue such actions was vested in the rehabilitation receiver appointed by the SEC. This point was crucial, as it questioned whether Union Bank had the right to independently seek legal remedies against EYCO while rehabilitation proceedings were underway.

To fully understand the Court’s decision, it’s important to examine the relevant provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 902-A, which governed corporate rehabilitation at the time. Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A states:

upon appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, pursuant to this Decree, all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended accordingly.

Despite this provision, the Supreme Court differentiated the nature of Union Bank’s claim. It was not merely a claim for debt but an action to rescind a potentially fraudulent transfer of assets. Such an action, the Court reasoned, falls outside the scope of claims that are automatically suspended during rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that the purpose of rehabilitation is to help distressed companies recover, not to shield them from liability for fraudulent activities.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished between the SEC case and the RTC case by noting that the Spouses Yutingco, who were parties in the RTC case, were not proper parties in the SEC case. As the Supreme Court pointed out in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, et al.:

the SEC’s jurisdiction on matters of suspension of payments is confined only to those initiated by corporations, partnerships or associations… Accordingly, this Court ordered the SEC “to drop from the petition for suspension of payments filed before it the names of Eulogio O. Yutingco, Caroline Yutingco-Yao and Theresa T. Lao without prejudice to their filing a separate petition in the Regional Trial Court.”

Building on this, the Supreme Court also found that the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed for in the two cases were different. In the RTC case, Union Bank sought to rescind the sale of properties, arguing that the Yutingcos/EYCO colluded with FEBTC to divert assets. In contrast, the SEC case was initiated by EYCO seeking a declaration of suspension of payments. As the Court reasoned, the validity of the sale to FEBTC was the principal issue in the RTC case, which was not addressed in the SEC proceedings.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied FEBTC’s petition and affirmed the CA’s decision to remand the case to the trial court for a full hearing. The Court held that while the motions to dismiss Civil Case No. 66477 should have been denied by the trial court, said case should have also been suspended in view of the creation of the MANCOM on October 27, 1997. It emphasized that the suspension of actions for claims against corporations applies to all actions, without distinction, except those expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business. This ruling clarifies the interplay between corporate rehabilitation proceedings and creditors’ rights, ensuring that the pursuit of legitimate claims is not unduly hindered by rehabilitation efforts.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Union Bank could pursue a case against FEBTC and EYCO in a regular court, given that EYCO had already filed for suspension of payments with the SEC.
What is litis pendentia, and why was it relevant here?	Litis pendentia is a legal principle that prevents multiple lawsuits involving the same parties and issues. FEBTC argued that the RTC case should be dismissed based on litis pendentia due to the pending SEC proceedings.
What is forum shopping, and was Union Bank found guilty of it?	Forum shopping occurs when a party repetitively avails themselves of several judicial remedies in different courts, based on the same transactions and facts. The Supreme Court found that Union Bank was not guilty of forum shopping in this case.
What is the effect of P.D. No. 902-A on actions against corporations under rehabilitation?	P.D. No. 902-A provides that upon the appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver, all actions for claims against the corporation are suspended. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this suspension does not apply to actions seeking to rescind fraudulent transfers of assets.
Why were the Spouses Yutingco dropped from the SEC case?	The Spouses Yutingco were dropped from the SEC case because the SEC’s jurisdiction on matters of suspension of payments is confined only to those initiated by corporations, partnerships, or associations, not individuals.
What was the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied FEBTC’s petition and affirmed the CA’s decision to remand the case to the trial court for a full hearing. This meant that Union Bank could continue pursuing its case against FEBTC and EYCO in the RTC.
How does this case affect creditors seeking to recover debts from companies undergoing rehabilitation?	This case clarifies that creditors’ rights are not automatically suspended during rehabilitation proceedings, especially when challenging fraudulent transactions. It provides a legal basis for creditors to pursue claims that fall outside the scope of claims that are automatically suspended.
What is the significance of the creation of the MANCOM in this case?	The creation of the MANCOM meant that the case should have been suspended in view of the creation of the MANCOM on October 27, 1997. It emphasized that the suspension of actions for claims against corporations applies to all actions, without distinction, except those expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business.

This case underscores the delicate balance between protecting distressed companies through rehabilitation and safeguarding the rights of creditors. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that rehabilitation proceedings are not used as a shield for fraudulent activities, providing clarity for creditors seeking to recover debts from companies undergoing financial distress.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 196637, June 03, 2019

June 3, 2019

Validity of Dation in Payment: Ensuring Creditor’s Rights in Debt Settlement

The Supreme Court ruled that a dation in payment (dacion en pago) is valid when entered into by a debtor and a creditor, even if the creditor has assigned its receivables to a third party, provided the creditor has not defaulted on its obligations to the assignee. This means that as long as the original creditor retains the right to administer and enforce the loan, any settlement agreement, such as a dation in payment, remains enforceable. This decision clarifies the conditions under which a creditor can validly settle debts despite prior assignments of receivables.

Debt Settlement or Legal Quagmire? Unpacking Dation in Payment Disputes

In Goldstar Rivermount, Inc. v. Advent Capital and Finance Corp., the central issue revolves around whether Advent Capital and Finance Corp. (Advent) validly entered into a Dation in Payment agreement with Goldstar Rivermount, Inc. (Goldstar). Goldstar initially borrowed P55,000,000 from Advent, securing the loan with real estate and chattel mortgages. When Goldstar failed to meet its amortization obligations, it offered its mortgaged properties as payment, leading to the Dation in Payment agreement. Subsequently, Goldstar sought to nullify this agreement, claiming that Advent had previously assigned its receivables from the loan to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), thus stripping Advent of its rights as a creditor. The heart of the legal matter rests on the conditions of the Deed of Assignment between Advent and DBP and whether Advent’s rights to administer and enforce the loan remained intact at the time of the Dation in Payment.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled in favor of Advent, finding that the Deed of Assignment was primarily a security for Advent’s loan with DBP. The courts emphasized that the transfer of rights and credits to DBP was conditional upon Advent’s default in payment. Given the absence of proof that Advent was in default at the time the Dation in Payment was signed, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. This meant that there was no valid transfer of rights from Advent to DBP. This decision highlighted the importance of meticulously examining the terms of assignment agreements to determine the actual rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, reinforcing the principle that contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties. The Court scrutinized the Deed of Assignment, particularly Sections 8, 9, 10 and 12, which delineated the circumstances under which Advent retained control over the loan. Section 8 explicitly stated that the administration and enforcement of the project loans, including all related matters, were to be handled solely by Advent. Section 9 further clarified that Advent would continue to deal with the Investment Enterprises (IEs), unless an Event of Default was declared. Furthermore, Section 10 authorized Advent to act as DBP’s attorney-in-fact, granting it the power to enter into contracts with Goldstar to secure the outstanding obligation. These provisions collectively underscored Advent’s continued authority to manage the loan and enter into settlement agreements.

Specifically, the Supreme Court quoted Sections 8 and 12 of the Deed of Assignment to emphasize the conditional nature of the assignment:

8. In accordance with the SLA, the administration and enforcement of the Project Loan/s, including all matters provided for or contemplated by the Project Loan Agreement/s, the note/s, lien instruments, insurance policy/ies and other documents relating to the Project Loan/s, shall be handled solely by the ASSIGNOR [Advent]. x x x

x x x x

12. Any provision herein to the contrary notwithstanding, should the ASSIGNOR be in default under the terms of the SLA, the ASSIGNEE may, at its option, enforce, sue on, collect, or take over the collection of payments then or thereafter due on the note/s and notify the IE/s of the same to make payment to the ASSIGNEE or take such steps or remedies as it may deem proper or necessary to collect the proceeds of the note/s or to recover upon the liens, collaterals, insurance policies and other documents relating to the Project Loan/s for purposes of satisfying its claim on the Subsidiary Loan/s.

The Court also addressed Goldstar’s argument that a letter from DBP directing it to pay its loan to DBP indicated that Advent had defaulted and DBP was the new creditor. The Court dismissed this argument on two grounds. First, whether Advent had defaulted was a question of fact that should have been decided by the trial court. Second, the letter was immaterial because it relied on an Amendment and Addendum to the Deed of Assignment, which was executed after the Dation in Payment. Thus, the original terms of the Deed of Assignment, which allowed Advent to manage the loan, prevailed. As such, the court reiterated the importance of upholding contractual obligations made in good faith as espoused in Article 1159 of the New Civil Code, which states that “[o]bligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith.”

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that contracts are perfected by mere consent, binding the parties to fulfill their stipulated obligations in good faith. Goldstar, having agreed to transfer its mortgaged properties as settlement, could not evade its contractual duties by citing subsequent amendments to the Deed of Assignment. The Court underscored that the Amendment and Addendum were non-existent at the time the Dation in Payment was signed, making the original terms of the Deed of Assignment controlling. This highlighted the significance of adhering to the terms of a contract at the time of its execution, preventing parties from unilaterally altering their obligations based on later developments.

This approach contrasts with situations where the original creditor has definitively relinquished control over the loan or has been declared in default. In those cases, the assignee (DBP) would have the right to step in and manage the loan, potentially invalidating any settlement agreements made by the original creditor. By focusing on the specific terms of the Deed of Assignment and the timing of the Amendment and Addendum, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the Dation in Payment and underscored the importance of contractual stability and predictability in commercial transactions. This decision serves as a reminder that parties must carefully review and understand their contractual obligations, and that courts will generally enforce those obligations in accordance with their terms.

Furthermore, the Court invoked Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, stating that only questions of law may be raised on appeal. Goldstar’s attempts to re-evaluate the evidence presented failed to demonstrate any errors of law in the CA’s factual findings. The Court reiterated that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary. By failing to prove that its petition fell under any exception to the general rule, Goldstar’s appeal was subsequently denied.

FAQs

What is a dation in payment?	A dation in payment (dacion en pago) is a way to settle a debt by transferring ownership of property to the creditor. It essentially substitutes the monetary obligation with the transfer of assets.
What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Advent could validly enter into a dation in payment agreement with Goldstar after assigning its receivables to DBP. The resolution hinged on whether Advent still retained sufficient rights over the loan at the time of the agreement.
What did the Deed of Assignment say?	The Deed of Assignment specified that Advent would continue to manage the loan unless it defaulted on its obligations to DBP. DBP could only step in as the assignee if Advent was in default.
Was Advent in default when the Dation in Payment was signed?	No, there was no evidence presented to show that Advent was in default at the time the Dation in Payment was signed. The Court thus ruled that Advent still had the right to enter into the agreement.
What was the effect of DBP’s letter to Goldstar?	The letter from DBP directing Goldstar to pay it directly was based on an Amendment and Addendum to the Deed of Assignment. Since this amendment was made after the Dation in Payment, it did not affect the validity of the original agreement.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the CA’s decision?	The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s finding that Advent had the authority to enter into the Dation in Payment under the original terms of the Deed of Assignment. The Court emphasized that contracts have the force of law and should be complied with in good faith.
What is the significance of Article 1159 of the New Civil Code?	Article 1159 states that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. This principle was central to the Court’s decision, emphasizing the binding nature of contractual agreements.
Can factual findings of lower courts be questioned in the Supreme Court?	Generally, the Supreme Court only considers questions of law. Factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding unless there is a clear error of law or an exception to the rule is proven.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Goldstar Rivermount, Inc. v. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. provides important clarity on the validity of dation in payment agreements when receivables have been assigned. The ruling underscores the importance of carefully reviewing the terms of assignment agreements and adhering to contractual obligations made in good faith.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Goldstar Rivermount, Inc. v. Advent Capital and Finance Corp., G.R. No. 211204, December 10, 2018

December 10, 2018

Corporate Rehabilitation vs. Specific Performance: Stay Order’s Impact on Claims

The Supreme Court ruled that a Stay Order issued during corporate rehabilitation proceedings suspends all claims against the distressed corporation, including actions for specific performance. This means that creditors seeking to enforce their claims, even for the execution of a deed of sale, must adhere to the rehabilitation process and cannot pursue separate legal actions outside of it. The decision reinforces the purpose of corporate rehabilitation, which is to allow a distressed company to reorganize its finances and operations without being burdened by immediate legal challenges from creditors.

When a Stay Order Supersedes a Claim for Specific Performance

This case involves Patricia Cabrieto dela Torre, who sought to compel Primetown Property Group, Inc. to execute a deed of sale for a condominium unit she claimed to have fully paid for. Primetown, however, had filed for corporate rehabilitation due to financial difficulties, leading to a Stay Order that suspended all claims against the company. The central legal question is whether dela Torre’s action for specific performance, compelling the execution of the deed of sale, is considered a “claim” that is subject to the Stay Order issued by the rehabilitation court.

The legal framework governing corporate rehabilitation is primarily found in Presidential Decree (PD) 902-A, as amended, and the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. These rules aim to provide a mechanism for financially distressed corporations to reorganize and regain solvency. A critical component of this process is the Stay Order, which serves to suspend all actions and claims against the corporation, providing it with a period of respite to restructure its affairs without the immediate threat of creditor lawsuits. Rule 4, Section 6 of the Interim Rules explicitly outlines the effects of a Stay Order, including the suspension of all claims, whether for money or otherwise.

Sec. 6. Stay Order. – If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, it shall, not later than five (5) days from the filing of the petition, issue an Order (b) staying enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against the debtor, its guarantors and sureties not solidarity liable with the debtor…

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinges on the definition of a “claim” within the context of corporate rehabilitation. The Court emphasizes that the Interim Rules define a claim broadly, encompassing all demands against a debtor, whether for money or otherwise. This all-encompassing definition leaves no room for distinctions or exemptions, indicating that any action seeking to enforce a right against the debtor’s assets falls within the scope of the Stay Order. Dela Torre’s action for specific performance, aimed at compelling Primetown to transfer ownership of the condominium unit, is therefore considered a claim that is subject to the suspension.

The Court also addresses Dela Torre’s argument that her claim should not be suspended because she had already fully paid the purchase price of the condominium unit. However, the Court notes that Primetown disputed this claim, asserting that Dela Torre still owed interest and penalty charges. This factual dispute underscores the need for a full trial on the merits, which is incompatible with the summary nature of rehabilitation proceedings. Allowing Dela Torre’s claim to proceed outside the rehabilitation process would undermine the purpose of the Stay Order and potentially prejudice other creditors.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court cites the case of Advent Capital and Finance Corporation v. Alcantara, et al., which emphasizes that rehabilitation proceedings are summary and non-adversarial in nature. These proceedings are designed to be resolved quickly and efficiently, and adversarial proceedings are inconsistent with this goal. Therefore, allowing interventions or separate actions outside the rehabilitation process would frustrate the purpose of corporate rehabilitation. The Court stresses that intervention is prohibited under Section 1, Rule 3 of the Interim Rules, reinforcing the idea that the RTC should not have entertained Dela Torre’s petition for intervention.

The ruling in this case has significant implications for creditors seeking to enforce their claims against companies undergoing corporate rehabilitation. It clarifies that the Stay Order is a powerful tool that suspends all types of claims, regardless of their nature. This means that creditors must participate in the rehabilitation proceedings and cannot pursue separate legal actions to enforce their rights. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the established procedures for corporate rehabilitation and ensures that all creditors are treated equitably during the process. The Court underscored that allowing individual actions would burden the rehabilitation receiver, diverting resources from restructuring efforts.

Moreover, the Supreme Court distinguishes this case from Town and Country Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Quisumbing, Jr., et al., where the Court ruled that a Stay Order did not apply to mortgage obligations that had already been enforced before the debtor filed for rehabilitation. In that case, the creditor had already acquired ownership of the mortgaged properties before the rehabilitation proceedings commenced. In contrast, Dela Torre’s claim to ownership of the condominium unit was disputed and had not been fully adjudicated before Primetown filed for rehabilitation. The Court emphasized this difference, noting that the parties’ contentions required a full-blown trial on the merits, which is inappropriate for the rehabilitation court.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had annulled the RTC’s order granting Dela Torre’s motion for intervention. The Court found that the RTC had committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing its orders, as they violated the Stay Order and gave undue preference to Dela Torre over Primetown’s other creditors. The decision reinforces the principle that the rehabilitation court has broad authority to manage the debtor’s assets and liabilities during the rehabilitation process and that the Stay Order is essential to achieving the goals of corporate rehabilitation.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case provides valuable guidance on the scope and effect of Stay Orders in corporate rehabilitation proceedings. It clarifies that all types of claims, including actions for specific performance, are subject to the Stay Order and that creditors must participate in the rehabilitation process to enforce their rights. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the established procedures for corporate rehabilitation and ensures that all creditors are treated equitably during the process. This ruling safeguards the rehabilitation process, enabling distressed corporations to restructure effectively.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether an action for specific performance, seeking the execution of a deed of sale, is considered a “claim” that is subject to a Stay Order issued during corporate rehabilitation proceedings.
What is a Stay Order in corporate rehabilitation?	A Stay Order is a court order that suspends all actions and claims against a distressed corporation undergoing rehabilitation, providing it with a period of respite to restructure its finances and operations.
What does the Stay Order prohibit?	The Stay Order prohibits the debtor from selling, encumbering, or disposing of its properties, and from making payments on liabilities outstanding as of the date of filing the rehabilitation petition.
What is the definition of a “claim” under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation?	Under the Interim Rules, a “claim” refers to all claims or demands of whatever nature against a debtor or its property, whether for money or otherwise.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Dela Torre’s motion for intervention?	The Supreme Court ruled against Dela Torre because her action for specific performance was considered a claim that was subject to the Stay Order, and intervention is prohibited under the Interim Rules to maintain the summary nature of rehabilitation proceedings.
*What is the significance of the Advent Capital* case cited by the Supreme Court?**	The Advent Capital case emphasizes that rehabilitation proceedings are summary and non-adversarial, and do not contemplate adjudication of claims that must be threshed out in ordinary court proceedings.
How does this case affect creditors of companies undergoing rehabilitation?	This case clarifies that creditors must participate in the rehabilitation proceedings and cannot pursue separate legal actions to enforce their rights, as all claims are subject to the Stay Order.
*How did the Supreme Court distinguish this case from Town and Country Enterprises, Inc. v. Hon. Quisumbing, Jr., et al.?*	The Court distinguished this case because, in Town and Country, the creditor had already acquired ownership of the mortgaged properties before the rehabilitation proceedings commenced, while in this case, Dela Torre’s claim to ownership was disputed.
What was the final ruling of the Supreme Court?	The Supreme Court denied Dela Torre’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, which had annulled the RTC’s order granting Dela Torre’s motion for intervention.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of the Stay Order in ensuring the orderly rehabilitation of distressed corporations. By suspending all claims, the Stay Order provides the breathing room necessary for the debtor to restructure its affairs and regain solvency. This ruling helps maintain the integrity of corporate rehabilitation proceedings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PATRICIA CABRIETO DELA TORRE v. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC., G.R. No. 221932, February 14, 2018

February 14, 2018

Corporate Dissolution: Directors as Trustees and Guarantor Liability After Corporate Revocation

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that the revocation of a corporation’s Certificate of Registration does not automatically extinguish its legal rights or the liabilities of its debtors. Even after dissolution, the corporation’s directors become trustees by operation of law, empowered to continue legal proceedings. Moreover, the Court affirmed that guarantors remain liable for the debts of a corporation, even after its dissolution, reinforcing the binding nature of guarantees and the principle that corporate dissolution should not unjustly enrich debtors at the expense of creditors. This decision clarifies the scope of corporate liquidation and the enduring responsibilities of guarantors, ensuring the protection of creditors’ rights in the face of corporate dissolution.

Can a Dissolved Corporation Still Collect Debts? Bancom’s Legal Battle

This case revolves around a dispute between Bancom Development Corporation and the Reyes Group, who acted as guarantors for loans obtained by Marbella Realty, Inc. from Bancom. Marbella defaulted on its loan obligations, leading Bancom to file a collection suit. Subsequently, Bancom’s Certificate of Registration was revoked by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The central legal question is whether the revocation of Bancom’s corporate registration abated the legal proceedings against the Reyes Group, and whether the guarantors are still liable for Marbella’s debts.

The petitioners, Ramon E. Reyes and Clara R. Pastor, argued that the revocation of Bancom’s Certificate of Registration by the SEC should abate the suit, claiming Bancom no longer existed. Furthermore, they contended that the appellate court incorrectly relied upon the Promissory Notes and the Continuing Guaranty, failing to consider earlier agreements that purportedly absolved them of liability for the debt. The Supreme Court addressed these arguments by clarifying the legal implications of corporate dissolution under Section 122 of the Corporation Code.

The Supreme Court DENIED the Petition, asserting that the revocation of Bancom’s Certificate of Registration did not justify the abatement of the proceedings. The Court cited Section 122 of the Corporation Code, which allows a corporation whose charter is annulled or terminated to continue as a body corporate for three years for specific purposes, including prosecuting and defending suits. However, the Court noted jurisprudence has established exceptions to this rule, allowing an appointed receiver, assignee, or trustee to continue pending actions on behalf of the corporation even after the three-year winding-up period.

The Court cited Sumera v. Valencia, where it was held that if a corporation liquidates its assets through its officers, its existence terminates after three years. However, if a receiver or assignee is appointed, the legal interest passes to the assignee, who may bring or defend actions for the corporation’s benefit even after the three-year period. Subsequent cases further clarified that a receiver or assignee need not be appointed; a trustee specifically designated for a particular matter, such as a lawyer representing the corporation, may institute or continue suits. Additionally, the board of directors may be considered trustees by legal implication for winding up the corporation’s affairs.

In this case, the SEC revoked Bancom’s Certificate of Registration on 26 May 2003. Despite this, Bancom did not convey its assets to trustees, stockholders, or creditors, nor did it appoint new counsel after its former law firm withdrew. The Supreme Court clarified that the mere revocation of a corporation’s charter does not automatically abate proceedings. Since Bancom’s directors are considered trustees by legal implication, the absence of a receiver or assignee was inconsequential. Moreover, the dissolution of a creditor-corporation does not extinguish any right or remedy in its favor, as stipulated in Section 145 of the Corporation Code.

Sec. 145. Amendment or repeal.- No right or remedy in favor of or against any corporation, its stockholders, members, directors, trustees, or officers, nor any liability incurred by any such corporation, stockholders, members, directors, trustees, or officers, shall be removed or impaired either by the subsequent dissolution of said corporation or by any subsequent amendment or repeal of this Code or of any part thereof.

The Court emphasized that the corresponding liability of the debtors of a dissolved corporation remains subsisting, preventing unjust enrichment at the corporation’s expense. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s finding that the petitioners were liable to Bancom as guarantors of Marbella’s loans. The petitioners executed a Continuing Guaranty in favor of Bancom, making them solidarily liable with Marbella for the amounts indicated on the Promissory Notes.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ defense that the promissory notes were not binding and that the funds released were merely additional financing. The obligations under the Promissory Notes and the Continuing Guaranty were plain and unqualified. Marbella promised to pay Bancom the amounts stated on the maturity dates, and the Reyes Group agreed to be liable if Marbella’s guaranteed obligations were not duly paid.

Even considering the other agreements cited by the petitioners, the Court found they would still be liable. These agreements established that Fereit was initially responsible for releasing receivables from State Financing, Marbella assumed this obligation after Fereit’s failure, and Bancom provided additional financing to Marbella for this purpose, with Fereit obligated to reimburse Marbella. The Amendment of the Memorandum of Agreement explicitly stated that Marbella was responsible for repaying the additional financing, regardless of the profitability of the Marbella II Condominium Project.

The Court pointed to the provisions highlighting Bancom’s extension of additional financing to Marbella, conditional upon repayment, and Marbella’s unconditional obligation to repay Bancom the stated amount, reflected in the Promissory Notes. Marbella, in turn, had the right to seek reimbursement from Fereit, a separate entity. While petitioners claimed Bancom controlled Fereit’s assets and activities, they provided insufficient evidence to support this assertion.

The Continuing Guaranty bound the petitioners to pay Bancom the amounts indicated on the original Promissory Notes and any subsequent instruments issued upon renewal, extension, amendment, or novation. The final set of Promissory Notes reflected a total amount of P3,002,333.84. Consequently, the CA and RTC ordered the payment of P4,300,247.35, representing the principal amount and all interest and penalty charges as of 19 May 1981, the date of demand.

The Court affirmed this ruling with modifications, specifying the amounts the petitioners were liable to pay Bancom, including the principal sum, interest accruing on the principal amount from 19 May 1981, penalties accrued in relation thereto, and legal interest from the maturity date until fully paid. The Court found the award of P500,000 for attorney’s fees appropriate, pursuant to the stipulation in the Promissory Notes, while modifying the stipulated interest rate to conform to legal interest rates under prevailing jurisprudence.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the revocation of Bancom’s Certificate of Registration by the SEC abated the legal proceedings against the Reyes Group, who were guarantors of Marbella’s loans, and whether the guarantors remained liable for Marbella’s debts.
Does the dissolution of a corporation extinguish its debts?	No, the dissolution of a corporation does not extinguish its debts. Section 145 of the Corporation Code explicitly states that no right or remedy in favor of or against a corporation is removed or impaired by its subsequent dissolution.
What happens to a corporation’s assets and liabilities upon dissolution?	Upon dissolution, a corporation’s directors become trustees by legal implication. These trustees are responsible for winding up the corporation’s affairs, including settling its debts and distributing its remaining assets to stockholders, members, or creditors.
Are guarantors still liable for a corporation’s debts after its dissolution?	Yes, guarantors remain liable for a corporation’s debts even after its dissolution. The Continuing Guaranty executed by the guarantors remains in effect, binding them to pay the amounts indicated on the Promissory Notes.
What is a Continuing Guaranty?	A Continuing Guaranty is an agreement where a guarantor agrees to be liable for the debts of another party, such as a corporation, even if the terms of the debt are modified or renewed. It ensures that the creditor can seek recourse from the guarantor if the debtor defaults.
What is the legal basis for directors acting as trustees after dissolution?	The legal basis for directors acting as trustees after dissolution is found in Section 122 of the Corporation Code and related jurisprudence. This provision allows the corporation to continue as a body corporate for three years after dissolution to wind up its affairs, with directors assuming the role of trustees by legal implication.
Can a dissolved corporation still pursue legal action to collect debts?	Yes, a dissolved corporation can still pursue legal action to collect debts. Even after dissolution, the corporation’s rights and remedies remain intact, allowing it to prosecute and defend suits to settle and close its affairs.
What was the outcome of the Bancom case?	The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, with modifications. The petitioners, Ramon E. Reyes and Clara R. Pastor, were held jointly and severally liable with Marbella Manila Realty, Inc., and other individuals for the amounts due to Bancom.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the principle that corporate dissolution does not automatically absolve debtors of their obligations. It reinforces the enduring responsibilities of guarantors and the continued legal standing of dissolved corporations to pursue and defend suits. This ruling ensures that creditors’ rights are protected and that debtors cannot unjustly benefit from the dissolution of a corporation.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Ramon E. Reyes and Clara R. Pastor vs. Bancom Development Corp., G.R. No. 190286, January 11, 2018

January 11, 2018

Simulated Contracts: Understanding Void Agreements in Property Transfers

This case clarifies the distinction between rescissible and void contracts, particularly concerning the transfer of property. The Supreme Court ruled that a Deed of Assignment intended to place assets beyond the reach of creditors is considered an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract. This means the contract is void from the beginning and produces no legal effect, preventing the intended transfer of ownership and protecting creditors from fraudulent transactions. The decision emphasizes the importance of genuine intent in contractual agreements and provides a framework for identifying simulated contracts.

The Smelting Plant Assignment: A Facade to Avoid Debt?

The case revolves around a dispute between G. Holdings, Inc. (GHI) and Cagayan Electric Power and Light Company, Inc. (CEPALCO). Ferrochrome Philippines, Inc. (FPI), a company operating a ferro-alloy smelting plant, owed CEPALCO a substantial amount for unpaid electricity bills. Facing a collection suit, FPI executed a Deed of Assignment in favor of GHI, purportedly transferring ownership of its smelting plant and equipment in exchange for debt. CEPALCO challenged this assignment, arguing that it was a simulated transaction designed to defraud creditors, specifically CEPALCO itself. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Deed of Assignment was valid or merely a sham intended to shield FPI’s assets from its creditors.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially rescinded the Deed of Assignment, finding several indicators of fraud. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision but characterized the assignment as absolutely simulated. This discrepancy in findings led the Supreme Court to delve deeper into the nature of the contract. The Court began by distinguishing between rescissible and void contracts, emphasizing that these are mutually exclusive categories. A rescissible contract is initially valid but can be set aside due to economic prejudice to one of the parties or their creditors. In contrast, a void contract is inexistent from the beginning due to inherent defects, such as the lack of genuine consent or an illegal purpose. The Civil Code outlines the specifics:

Article 1381. The following contracts are rescissible:

Those which are entered into by guardians whenever the wards whom they represent suffer lesion by more than one-fourth of the value of the things which are the object thereof;

Those agreed upon in representation of absentees, if the latter suffer the lesion stated in the preceding number;

Those undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in any other manner collect the claims due them;

Those which refer to things under litigation if they have been entered into by the defendant without the knowledge and approval of the litigants or of competent judicial authority;

All other contracts specially declared by law to be subject to rescission.

Article 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;

Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious;

Those whose cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction;

Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;

Those which contemplate an impossible service;

Those where the intention of the parties relative to the principal object of the contract cannot be ascertained;

Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.

The Supreme Court highlighted the key difference between rescissible and void contracts. Rescissible contracts have an initial validity until rescinded, while void contracts lack legal effect from inception. Simulation, under Article 1345 of the Civil Code, occurs when parties do not intend to be bound by the terms of their agreement. This simulation can be absolute (contracto simulado), where the parties intend no legal effect, or relative (contracto disimulado), where they conceal their true agreement. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the Deed of Assignment was an instance of absolute simulation. The evidence indicated that FPI never intended to relinquish control of its assets to GHI, despite the wording of the deed.

A crucial piece of evidence was a letter preceding the Deed of Assignment, which outlined options for GHI to operate the smelting plant, while FPI retained rights to the work process and potential revenue sharing. This arrangement contradicted the notion of an absolute transfer of ownership. The Court emphasized that the intent to place assets beyond the reach of creditors is a hallmark of simulated contracts. The court referenced the case of Vda. de Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, stating:

x x x the characteristic of simulation is the fact that the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or in any way alter the juridical situation of the parties. Thus, where a person, in order to place his property beyond the reach of his creditors, simulates a transfer of it to another, he does not really intend to divest himself of his title and control of the property; hence, the deed of transfer is but a sham. x x x

Building on this principle, the Court concluded that FPI’s primary intention was to shield its assets from CEPALCO’s claim, rather than genuinely transfer ownership to GHI. Although the RTC and CA identified badges of fraud, which often indicate intent to deceive creditors, the Supreme Court clarified that these badges of fraud further supported the finding of absolute simulation, not rescission. The Court ultimately declared the Deed of Assignment inexistent, affirming the CA’s ruling on simulation but correcting the error of ordering rescission.

Regarding GHI’s claim for damages, the Court deemed it superfluous given the declaration of the Deed of Assignment’s inexistence. The complaint was dismissed for lack of cause of action. This decision reinforces the principle that contracts entered into without genuine intent are void and unenforceable. It underscores the importance of clear and unambiguous agreements, especially when transferring property, to avoid accusations of simulation and potential legal challenges.

FAQs

What is a simulated contract?	A simulated contract is one where the parties do not intend to be bound by its terms. It can be absolute, where no legal effect is intended, or relative, where the true agreement is concealed.
What is the difference between a rescissible and a void contract?	A rescissible contract is initially valid but can be set aside due to economic prejudice, while a void contract is invalid from the beginning due to inherent defects.
What was the main issue in this case?	The main issue was whether the Deed of Assignment between FPI and GHI was a valid transfer of property or a simulated transaction to avoid FPI’s debt to CEPALCO.
What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the Deed of Assignment?	The Supreme Court ruled that the Deed of Assignment was an absolutely simulated or fictitious contract and therefore void from the beginning.
What evidence supported the finding of simulation?	A letter preceding the Deed of Assignment indicated that FPI intended to retain control over its assets and work processes, contradicting the idea of an absolute transfer.
What are badges of fraud?	Badges of fraud are circumstances that suggest an intent to deceive creditors, such as transferring property for inadequate consideration or when facing financial difficulties.
How does this ruling affect creditors?	This ruling protects creditors by preventing debtors from fraudulently transferring assets to avoid paying their debts.
What was the basis for CEPALCO’s counterclaim?	CEPALCO’s counterclaim asserted that the Deed of Assignment was intended to defraud creditors and was invalid because of the partial summary judgement by RTC Pasig.

This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and genuine intent in contractual agreements. Parties must ensure that their actions reflect their stated intentions, particularly when dealing with significant asset transfers. Failure to do so may result in legal challenges and the potential invalidation of the agreement.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: G. Holdings, Inc. v. CEPALCO, G.R. No. 226213, September 27, 2017

September 27, 2017

Tag: Creditors’ Rights

From Financial Distress to Renewal: The Mootness Doctrine in Corporate Rehabilitation

FAQs

When Does Corporate Rehabilitation Trump Prior Foreclosure?

FAQs

The Importance of Filing Claims in the Proper Court During Bank Liquidation

Hermosa Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 222972, February 10, 2021

Legal Context: Jurisdiction and Liquidation Under Philippine Law

Case Breakdown: The Journey of Hermosa Bank and DBP

Practical Implications: Navigating Bank Liquidation Claims

Frequently Asked Questions

Key Takeaway: The Trust Fund Doctrine and Shareholder Liability

Enano-Bote, et al. v. Alvarez, et al., G.R. No. 223572, November 10, 2020

The Trust Fund Doctrine: A Legal Lifeline for Creditors

Unraveling the Enano-Bote Case: A Journey Through the Courts

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

Frequently Asked Questions

Unraveling Mortgage Prescription: When Does the Clock Start Ticking?

FAQs

The Alleged Fraudulent Conveyance: Union Bank’s Fight Against EYCO and FEBTC

FAQs

Debt Settlement or Legal Quagmire? Unpacking Dation in Payment Disputes

FAQs

When a Stay Order Supersedes a Claim for Specific Performance

FAQs

Can a Dissolved Corporation Still Collect Debts? Bancom’s Legal Battle

FAQs

The Smelting Plant Assignment: A Facade to Avoid Debt?

FAQs