Pryce Corporation vs. China Banking Corporation G.R. No. 172302, 18 Fer!ary 201", #n Banc $%eonen, &.' Facts(
A petition for corporate rehabilitation filed by petitioner Pryce Corporation on July 9, 2004 with the Regional Regional Trial Trial Court of Maati! Maati! The rehabilitati rehabilitation on court found the petition petition "ufficient "ufficient in for# and "ub"tance and i""ued a "tay order on July $%, 2004 appointing &ener T! Mendo'a a" rehabilitation recei(er! Mendo'a a" recei(er, he wa" directed to e(aluate and gi(e reco##endation" on Pryce Corporation)" propo"ed rehabilitation rehabilitation plan! *a(ing denied the "a#e, he "ub#itted an a#ended rehabilitation plan which the Court appro(ed! China +aning Corporation and +an of the Philippine "land", both creditor" of Pryce Corporation, oppo"e oppo"ed d the the appro( appro(al al of the "aid "aid rehabi rehabilit litati ation on plan! plan! They They cited cited that that "uch "uch plan plan (iolat (iolate" e" the nonnoni#pair#ent clau"e and #utuality of contract"! *owe(er, the Rehabilitation Court "till confir#ed the rehabilitation plan! China +an and +P filed their "eparate appeal"! n China +an)" ca"e, the deci"ion of the rehabilitation court wa" re(er"ed and "et a"ide! *owe(er, in +P)" ca"e, the deci"ion of the rehabilitation court wa" "u"tained and affir#ed! Pryce Pryce Corpor Corporati ation on al"o al"o appeal appealed ed to thi" thi" court court a""ail a""ailing ing the granti granting ng re"pon re"ponden dentt China China +anin +aning g Corporation)" petition! Pryce Corporation argue" that the i""ue on the (alidity of the rehabilitation court order" order" i" now re" .udica .udicata! ta! Petiti Petitione onerr Pryce Pryce Corpor Corporati ation on "ub#it "ub#it"" that that the the ruling ruling in +P (! Pryce Corporation contradict" the pre"ent ca"e, and it ha" rendered the i""ue on the (alidity and regularity of the rehabilitation court order" a" re" .udicata! /econd, petitioner Pryce Corporation contend" that Rule 4, /ection of the nteri# Rule" of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation doe" not re1uire the rehabilitation court to hold a hearing before i""uing a "tay order! )ss!e(
hether or not a hearing i" needed prior to the i""uance of a "tay order in corporate rehabilitation proceeding" R!*ing(
Petition GR+N#-. 3owhere in the nteri# Rule" doe" it re1uire a co#prehen"i(e di"cu""ion in the "tay order on the court)" finding" of "ufficiency in for# and "ub"tance!
The "tay order and appoint#ent of a rehabilitation recei(er dated July $%, 2004 i" an e5traordinary, preli#inary, e5 parte re#ed6y7!The effecti(ity period of a "tay order i" only fro# the date of it" i""uance until di"#i""al of the petition or ter#ination of the rehabilitation proceeding"! t i" not a final di"po"ition of the ca"e! t i" an interlocutory order defined a" one that doe" not finally di"po"e of the ca"e, and doe" not end the Court)" ta" of ad.udicating the partie") contention" and deter#ining their right" and liabilitie" a" regard" each other, but ob(iou"ly indicate" that other thing" re#ain to be done by the Court! Thu", it i" not co(ered by the re1uire#ent under the Con"titution that a deci"ion #u"t include a di"cu""ion of the fact" and law" on which it i" ba"ed! 3either doe" the nteri# Rule" re1uire a hearing before the i""uance of a "tay order! hat it re1uire" i" an initial hearing before it can gi(e due cour"e to or di"#i"" a petition! 3e(erthele"", while the nteri# Rule" doe" not re1uire the holding of a hearing before the i""uance of a "tay order, neither doe" it prohibit the holding of one! Thu", the trial court ha" a#ple di"cretion to call a hearing when it i" not confident that the allegation" in the petition are "ufficient in for# and "ub"tance, for "o long a" thi" hearing i" held within the fi(e 8:-day period fro# the filing of the petition ; the period within which a "tay order #ay i""ue a" pro(ided in the nteri# Rule"!
