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