Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
KEI MARIE and BIANCA ANGELICA, all
surnamed ABRERA, minors and represented by their parent EVELYN C.
ABRERA; ASTRID NOELLE S. ALMEDA, minor, represented by his parent MA. ROMINA
FRANCHESCA S. ALMEDA; JOHN KENNETH P. ANDALIS, minor, represented by his
parent ELSA P. ANDALIS; RONALD B. ANG, minor, represented by his parent MA.
JUDY B. ANG; MARIEL ANGELES, minor, represented by her parent ENRIQUE E.
ANGELES; JEREMIAH M. ANTONIO, minor, represented by his parent ELSA M.
ANTONIO; LESTER C. ARAO, minor, represented by his parent ROSALINA C. ARAO;
MA. LIRIO A. AROMIN, minor, represented by his parent FREDERICK A. AROMIN;
ELDY S. AZURIN, minor, represented by her parent ELSA S. AZURIN; MARION JANINE
J. AZURIN, minor, represented by her parent MA. THERESA J. AZURIN; PIOLO
MIGUEL G. BARLETA, minor, represented by his parent HENRY LUIS E. BARLETA;
VIANCA SOPHIA, VINCE PATRICK and VOLTAIRE BYRONE, all surnamed BASAS, minors,
and respresented by their parents NERIO and MARIBEL D. BASAS; LAWRENCE CARLOS and LUIS PAULO, all surnamed BATAC,
minors, and represented by their parent RAQUEL C. BATAC; DARREL L. BAUTISTA, minor, represented by his parent
NILDA L. BAUTISTA; JUAN CARLOS and MARIA ANGELA, all surnamed BAUZA, minors,
and represented by their parent NESTOR A. BAUZA; MARK GERALD and LUIGI, all
surnamed BENTULAN, minors, and represented by their parent FLORENCIO M.
BENTULAN; PIERRE ANGELI M. BLASCO, minor, represented by her parent NARDA A.
BLASCO; SARAH CATHERINE A. CABACES, minor, represented by her parent LUZ A.
CABACES; KIRK ANTHONY and JOHN
MICHAEL, all surnamed CAMUS, minors, represented by their parent MABEL B.
CAMUS; PRECIOUS JOY V. CAPISTRANO,
minor, represented by her parent JOSEPH F. CAPISTRANO; SHELLAH MAE P. CARINO,
minor, represented by her parent RUPERTO L. CARINO; JOHN LAWRENCE A. CATAN,
minor, represented by his parent BERNARDINO O. CATAN, JR.; CZARINA ROSE S.
CHAN, minor, represented by her parent LUCILA S. CHAN; ANTHONY S. CHAN, minor,
represented by his parent WILLY L. CHAN; ADRIAN CHRISTIAN S. CHUA, minor,
represented by his parent VINSON G. CHUA; CHRISTOFFER RYAN and CARL BENEDICT,
all surnamed CHUA, minors, represented by their parent EDGARDO A. CHUA;
SHIELA CERNIAS, minor, represented by her parent YOLANDA CERNIAS; GENE LOUISE
B. COMENDADOR, minor, represented by his parent HERMOGENES A. COMENDADOR;
JOHN KENNETH and MICHAEL ANGELO, all surnamed CRUZ, minors, and represented
by their parent AIDA L. CRUZ; WENDELL
JAKE D. CRUZ, minor, represented by his parent EDWIN I. CRUZ; SYMON GABRIEL
M. DAVID, minor, represented by his parent ARSENIO P. DAVID; JENNILYN M. DE
JESUS, minor, represented by her parent MARCIAL S. DE JESUS; DYLEEN MAY M.
DELA ROSA, minor, represented by her parent ANALEN M. DELA ROSA; MA. ANGELIKA
B. DELA ROSA, minor, represented by her parent ROMULO R. DELA ROSA; MARK
KEVIN H. DELA TORRE, minor, represented
by his parent LEONORA H. DELA TORRE; ALVIN MERCK C. DE LEON, minor, represented
by his parent MERCEDITA C. DE LEON; RICHARD ANTHONY B. DELIZO, minor,
represented by his parent RICHMOND JOHN DELIZO; REYNOLD JOHN A. DEMIN, minor,
represented by his parents MERLIN and HERNANDO A. DEMIN; MIRCO M.
DESPABELADERA, minor, represented by his parent ELINITA M. DESPABELADERA;
CARLO D. DIALA, minor, represented by his parent LEONOR D. DIALA; PATRICK
JEROME and FRANCIS, all surnamed DIAZ, minors, represented by their parents
ESMERALDO and CARMENCITA DIAZ; HILTELYN C. DOMINGUIANO, minor, represented by
her parent HILTON D. DOMINGUIANO; ROGIELYN G. EBETO, minor, represented by
his parent ROGER R. EBETO; ERIN and EINRE, all surnamed ERMINO, minors, and
represented by their parent EVA H. ERMINO; ARRON LEVIN G. ESGUERRA, minor,
represented by his parent RICHARD MARTIN G. ESGUERRA; MA. ANGELICA GRACIA C.
ESTRADA, minor, represented by her parent CHARITA C. ESTRADA; FEDERICO C.
FAUSTINO, JR., minor, represented by his parent SALVACION C. FAUSTINO; MIA
RUTH M. FERNANDEZ, minor, represented by her parent MILAGROS M. FERNANDEZ;
FAITH and CHARITY, all surnamed GABRIEL, minors, and represented by their
parent FE G. GABRIEL; C JAY and ELAINE JOY, all surnamed GAHUMAN,
minors, and represented by their
parents JOSEPHINE and CASTOR V. GAHUMAN, JR.; MARY KAYCY N. GALLARDO, minor,
represented by her parent GRIZELA N. GALLARDO; DALRU MARPIN C. GAVIOLA,
minor, represented by his parent DALIA C. GAVIOLA; MARIEL CARLA and JONALYN,
all surnamed GEPULLANO, minors, and represented by their parent MANUELA A.
GEPULLANO; JOEL ROY D. GONZALES, minor, represented by his parent ENELIA D.
GONZALES; KIM ARRIZA P. HENSON, minor, represented by her parent MERCEDITA G.
PASTRANA; EFFIE FIELLE and GIUSEPPE LORENZO, all surnamed IGNACIO, minors,
and represented by their parent GEMMA M. IGNACIO; HANS CHRISTIAN C. GOLONG,
minor, represented by his parent BENSON C. GOLONG; JOSEPHINE V. JORGE, minor,
represented by her parent ELEUTERIO C. JORGE; MARY JUDE C. LOMARDA, minor,
represented by her parent BENJAMIN A. LOMARDA; JERLIN and JERUSALEM, all
surnamed LOPEZ, minors, and represented by their parents MERLINDA and
JERUSALEM P. LOPEZ, SR.; DHAN COLINS, MA. LIANA, MARIA VIRGINIA and RIZALDY,
all surnamed MABBORANG, minors, represented by their parents MERCELITA and
DANIEL T. MABBORANG, JR.; OSCAR R. MACHICA, minor, represented by his parent
ROSE R. MACHICA; NERSON and NERIEL, all surnamed MADRIAGA, minors, and
represented by their parent NOEL B. MADRIAGA; MOISES M. MADRID, minor,
represented by his parent, FEDERICO S. MADRID II; CHRISTINE ALYSSA A.
MARQUEZ, minor, represented by her parent BERNARDO T. MARQUEZ, JR.; CATHLEEN
R. MARQUEZ, minor represented by her parent CARMELITA P. MARQUEZ; KRISTEL
CANE A. MARQUEZ, minor, represented by her parent FILOMENA A. MARQUEZ; CHRYL
BHEFER M. MARTINEZ, minor, represented by ESPERANZA M. MARTINEZ; JESSICA J.
MARTINEZ, minor, represented by her parent DAISY J. MARTINEZ; IVAN GERARD G.
MASILUNGAN, minor, represented by his parent LILIAN G. MASILUNGAN; MONA
JAMYLA and KARLA VENICE, all surnamed MENDOZA, minors, and represented by
their parents LILIBETH and OSCAR U. MENDOZA; MARY JOYCE O. MONTEVERDE, minor,
represented by her parent MANUELITO C.
MONTEVERDE; CHRISTIAN PAULO O. MORALES, minor, represented by his parent ELY
O. MORALES; JOHN ADRIAN M. DADOR and KRIZIA ARRA G. MUNCAL, minors, and represented
by their parent LOLITA C. MUNCAL; KENNETH
R. MUYA, minor, represented by his parent EMILY R. MUYA; JACOB YSRAEL
C. NUCUM, minor, represented by his parent MARIA VICI C. NUCUM; JERIEL JAMES
S. NG, minor, represented by his parent JAIME RAMON J. NG; JOHN MARVIN and
JOHN MICHAEL, all surnamed NORADA, minors, and represented by their parents
NORMA and RODEL P. NORADA; KERVIN M. OCAMPO, minor, represented by his parent
JESUS V. OCAMPO; MARIA ANA and ANGELO LEO, all surnamed OLANDAY, minors, and
represented by their parent ROLANDO P. OLANDAY; PHOEBE GAYLE Y. ONG, minor,
rerepsented by her parent PEPITO C. ONG; MARTIN JOHN and MARC JASON, all
surnamed ORIBIANA, minors, and represented by their parents MYRNA and JOSE
JERRY G. ORIBIANA; MARY ANN M. ORTEGA, minor, represented by her parent
VIRGILIO L. ORTEGA; PHILLIP JULIUS, PHILLIP JOBILL, all surnamed PARANE and
HAYLEY G. SABANGAN, minors, and represented by their parent and guardian
ANNABELLE G. PARANE; RAY BERNARD and REYNEDEN, all surnamed PAYUYO, minors,
represented by their parent EDEN A. PAYUYO; JUSTIN GODFRED B. PERALTA, minor,
represented by his parent MA. TERESA B. PERALTA; PATRICK JOHN C. PEREZ,
minor, represented by his parent ROSILYN C. PEREZ; RAMON MIGUEL C. PINEDA,
minor, represented by his parent MELINA C. PINEDA; ERIKA R. PRADO, minor,
represented by her parent VIRGILIO C. PRADO; LAARNI YVETTE M. QUIJANO, minor,
represented by her parent ARNELSON R. QUIJANO; JOSEPH DAVID Q. SERRANO,
minor, represented by his parents MA. AIDA F. QUINIT; SHAYNE ANNE and SHEENA
APRIL, all surnamed RABIT, minors, and represented by their parent MILA S. RABIT; JELYNNE and
JENNIFER, all surnamed REYES, minors, and represented by their parents FE and
JUANITO G. REYES; PAULA KATE ROCABERTE, minor, represented by her parent MA.
KATHRYN A. ROCABERTE; EDRIANE JAMES E.
ROMERO, minor, represented by his parent RIZALITA E. ROMERO; CHRISTOPHER NEIL
B. SACLOLO, minor, represented by his
parent ROBERTO C. SACLOLO; FRANZ HENDRIX FELIX G. SALCEDO, minor,
represented by his parent ROXANIETTE G. SALCEDO; JOHN EDWARD F. SANTOS,
minor, represented by his parent ANITA F.
SANTOS; DAVID T. SANTOS, minor, represented by his parent ESTRELLA T.
SANTOS; MARK ANTHONY E. SINOHIN,
minor, represented by his parents DOLORES and MAMERTO M. SINOHIN; FRANCIS
ADRIAN and FRANCIS DAVID, all surnamed SUMULONG, minors, represented by their
parent FRANCISCO M. SUMULONG; SEAN
LAWRENCE A. SY, minor, represented by his parent ERLANI S. SY; JOSEPH
MAR G. TALAG, minor, represented by his parent JOSE MARCIAL P. TALAG; KIM
ANDREW D. TAMPO, minor, represented by
her parent FRANCISCO S. TAMPO, JR.; LANCE MICHAEL S. TIU, minor, represented
by his parent GIRLIELYN S. TIU; JULIAN BERNARDO FERICO TORRALBA, minor,
represented by his parent FEDERICO C. TORRALBA; JENAVEE A. VALENZUELA, minor,
represented by her parent EDNA A. VALENZUELA; MYSTICA R. VARGAS, minor,
represented by her parent ROSA R. VARGAS; DIANE V. VERGARA, minor,
represented by her parent VILMA VERGARA; KRISTOFER LORENZ J. VICEDO, minor,
represented by his parent CESAR M. VICEDO; MERRY GRACE and MIZZAH-MYRRH, all
surnamed VILLALON, minors, and
represented by their parent MYRNA M. VILLALON; BILLY JOE P. VILLAREAL, minor,
represented by his parent ANITA P. VILLAREAL; REGINE A. VINA; minor, represented by her parent
MA. ERMINDA A. VINA, ROWAME LAR, DING BERNALD and KAMILLE SHANE, all surnamed
WAJE, minors, and represented by their parent ZOILA M. WAJE; KRISTINE RAY O.
ZAPANTA, represented by her parent CRISTINA O. ZAPANTA; JEANAFE ABELARDE,
represented by her guardian FE LILIA M. ABELARDE; JOHN JASPER C. ABRERA,
represented by his parent EVELYN C. ABRERA; AILEEN and ALLAN, all surnamed
ACIELO, represented by their parent ALBERTO P. ACIELO; MARJORIE, MARK DAVE,
OLIVE MARIE, all surnamed ADANZA and LUIS EDISON RANA, represented by their
guardian/parents MYRNA and ORESTE P. ADANZA; JOSEL AMOR E. AGUILAR,
represented by his parent JOSE L. AGUILAR; JOSUELLE A. ALCANTARA, represented
by her parent ALICIA A. ALCANTARA; ELINOR JOY J. ANTONIO, represented by her
parent TERESITA J. ANTONIO; DESIREE CLARRISSE K. ARANZASO, represented by her
parent GERMELYN GRACE K. ARANZASO; MARK JEREMIAH J. AZURIN, represented by
his parent MA. THERESA J. AZURIN;
ADAMSON S. BAETA, represented by his parent ADAM Q. BAETA; LEO A. BALACUIT;
SYDNEY ADRIANE C. BALOD, represented
by her parent ANDRES P. BALOD, SR.; ANTONIO A. BALTAZAR; JAY-R B.
BANOGON, represented by his parent EDUARDO E. BANOGON; SHARYLEN C. BARLIN,
represented by her parent MAXIMA C. BARLIN; JAYZON S. BAUTISTA, represented
by his parent ESTER S. BAUTISTA; ROSALITA B. BENIG, repesented
by her parent LILLOSA B. BENIG; ROSIELYN and REMILYN, all surnamed BERMUDEZ,
represented by their parent MARINA C. BERMUDEZ; JUDITH L. BERNAL; JOELIE
LELAINE D. BOCAR, represented by her parent JOSEPH G. BOCAR; JEAN CARLO
BUENO, represented by her guardian
JEMMA G. TERRADO; JANINA S. BUSTOS, represented by her parent CRISTINA
S. BUSTOS; DOMINADOR D. CAMACHO; EVA CAMERO, represented by her parent MERLINDA
C. CAMERO; DENNIS ANGELO C. CANLAS, represented by his parent ARMANDO L.
CANLAS; EZRA P. CANLAS, represented by her
parent ROMULO T. CANLAS; MARIA VICTORIA B. CARLOS; VISAMINDA Z.
CARLOS, represented by her parent MA. JOSEFINA Z. CARLOS; RHENY FRANCES F.
CATIMBANG, represented by her parent HENRY T. CATIMBANG; ADDISON S. CHAN, represented
by his parent WILLY CHAN; ACE PAREJA CHUMACERA, represented by his parent
YOLANDA PAREJA CHUMACERA; ELLAN MARIE P. CIPRIANO, represented by her parent
MARIZA P. CIPRIANO; JASON CARLO U. CONCEPCION, represented by his parent
FEDERICO A. CONCEPCION; MARK SHERWIN A. CREUS, represented by his parent
MEDENCIA A. CREUS; IMELDA V. CRUZ; ARVILYNNE L. DALANGIN, represented by her
parent EVA L. DALANGIN; DENNIS and KATHRYN, all surnamed DE JESUS, represented by their parent
MARCIAL S. DE JESUS; RHODA PIA B. DELIZO; RANIER SAN JOSE DEL ROSARIO,
represented by his parent CEFERINO S. DEL ROSARIO; FRANCIS J. DIAZ,
represented by his parent ESMERALDO G. DIAZ; MEDYLEN P. DIMDIMAN, represented
by her parent DANILO D. DIMDIMAN; ARMAND ARNEL MILLAN T. DIVINAGRACIA,
represented by his parent MARIETTA T. DIVINAGRACIA; ROBERTO NEIL DIZON,
represented by his parent ROBERTO V. DIZON; CATHERINE DONES, represented by
her parent TERESITA L. DONES; SHERYL
BUDIONGAN ESQUILLA, represented
by her parent EUSEBIA B. ESQUILLA; RUEL A. FERNANDO, represented by his
parent REMEDIOS C. FERNANDO; RAYES, RYAN and RICHARD, all surnamed FRIAS,
represented by their parent ESTELLA P. FRIAS; KATRINA GRACE R. GALANG,
represented by her parent MA. VICTORIA R. GALANG; JIMMY and JOANNE MARIE, all
surnamed GO, represented by their parent MIRIAM MARGARETTE M. GO; JUNALIN B.
AQUINO, represented by her guardian SUSANA B. GOLOCINO; HANS CHRISTIAN C.
GOLONG, represented by his parent BENSON C. GOLONG; KRISTINE GONZALES,
represented by her parent EDNA L. GONZALES; AGNES L. GUIANG; LOURDES JOY and
ERIK MARKUS, all surnamed HERNAL, represented by their parent NORMAN HERNAL;
MARK TIMOTHY A. HERNANDEZ, represented by his parent MARIO G. HERNANDEZ;
RACHEL JOY M. IBANEZ, represented by her parent BRENDA M. IBANEZ; CARLO
MIGUEL A. IBARRA, represented by his parent MARY CLAIR A. IBARRA; SHALIMAR S.
ICABANDI, represented by his parent LADISLAO I. ICABANDI; DANILO IDOS; EDISON
O. INGALLA, represented by his parent EDUARDO I. INGALLA; JOMARI M. JAVILINAR, represented by his parent
MILAGROS M. JAVILINAR; JOSEPHINE S. JOVES; VICTORIA P. JUMANOG; ANNA CAMILLE
R. LALATA, represented by her parent CORAZON R. LALATA; LAWRENCE CHRISTIAN
LAM, represented by his parent MILA DE LEON LAM; KATHERINE and JULIE ANN, all
surnamed CABALLA, represented by their guardian CECILIA C. LUBBERTS; DANICA
MAE M. MABBORANG, represented by her parent DANIEL T. MABBORANG, JR.; GRACE, ROBERTO
JOSHUE and JOSEPH, all surnamed MALAZARTE, represented by their parent LUCAS L. MALAZARTE, JR.;
ADAM LESTER E. MANALANG, represented by his parent MARISSA E. MANALANG;
CHIARA A. MARASIGAN, represented by her parent EUFROSINA A. MARASIGAN; ROSE
E. MARQUEZ, represented by
her parent FEDERICO T. MARQUEZ; RICHARD J. MARTINEZ, represented by his
parent DAISY J. MARTINEZ; IVAN ISRA and EXEQUIEL, all surnamed MASILUNGAN,
represented by their parent LILIAN G. MASILUNGAN; KENO A. MENDEZ, represented
by his parent MA. CLARA A. MENDEZ; LIGAYA J. MENESES; RIA and RUBY, all surnamed
MIRASOL, represented by their parent MARILOU S. MIRASOL; EMMANUEL L. MISA,
represented by his parent LETICIA L. MISA; MA. KATRINA M. MAYO; NATHANIEL and
MARVIN NOEL, all surnamed MURILLO, represented by their parent NERISSA T.
MURILLO; ERIC and MICHAEL, all surnamed MUYA, represented by their parent
EMILY R. MUYA; IDA AYESAW. NECIA, represented by her parent ROBERTO P. NECIA;
JETHRO FRANCIS S. NG, represented by his parent PRISCILLA S. NG; MARY ANN G.
MERCADO, represented by her guardian CYNTHIA M. NOVENCIDO; MA. KATRINA M.
OCAMPO, represented by her parent JESUS V. OCAMPO; KATHLEEN KAY and RUFFA,
all surnamed OLIMAN, represented by their parent ANGELES L. OLIMAN; RAYMOND
JOSEPH R. OLIVERA; RONA M. OPULENCIA, represented by her parent GLORIA M.
OPULENCIA; JESSICA MAE G. ORIBIANA, represented by her parent JOSE JERRY G.
ORIBIANA; JOSE CONRADO T. OROPILLA,
represented by his parent REBECCA T. OROPILLA; ANN FRANCIS M. ORTIZ,
represented by her parent ANTONIO S. ORTIZ; JOHN PETER PALENCIA, represented
by his parent TSG. PETER K. PALENCIA; DOM DANIEL M. PATERNO, represented by
his parent MYRNA M. PATERNO; AUSTIN RAINER M. PEREZ, represented by his
parent FE M. PEREZ; FRANCISCO and ANGELICA, all surnamed POBOCAN, represented
by their parent MEDALLA T. POBOCAN; DIANA and CARMELA, all surnamed PRADO,
represented by their parents ARCELI and VIRGILIO C. PRADO; FELIX and SAHARA,
all surnamed RABIT, represented by their parent MILA S. RABIT; MA. CRISTINA
PAULA A. RAMIREZ, represented by her parent ISMAEL M. RAMIREZ; GLENN JOSEPH
R. ARBOLEDA, represented by his guardian NANETTE S. RAMIREZ; RICARDO R. ONG,
represented by his guardian CARMEN R. RAMOS; GIAN FRANCIS B. RAMOS,
represented by his parent ELIZABETH B. RAMOS; CHRISTIAN REY G. RAMOS,
represented by his parent IRINEO B. RAMOS, JR.; PRINCESS RUTH L. RAYNERA,
represented by her parent PURISIMA L. RAYNERA; MARISSA TESSA Y. REDOR,
represented by her parent FLORDELIZA Y. REDOR; PAULO and DENNIS, all surnamed
ROMERO, represented by their parents LERMA and EDUARDO C. ROMERO; JILLIAN
ROSE L. ROSARIO, represented by her parent LYDIA L. ROSARIO; VALERIE C.
RUBIALES, represented by her parent DELFIN A. RUBIALES; ANITA S. SAAVEDRA;
GIAN CARLO L. SALAZAR, represented by his parent VIRGILIO B. SALAZAR; TROT
ZARDOZ and GAIA KASSIOPEIA, all surnamed SALCEDO, represented by their parent
ROXANIETTE G. SALCEDO; RICHARD D. SANTOS, represented by his parent ELENA D.
SANTOS; TWINKLE I. SAQUITAN, represented by her parent DOLORES I. SAQUITAN;
ROCKY and JENNIFER, all surnamed SARDUAL, represented by their parent
JEFFERSON SARDUAL; MARIA LOURDES SARMIENTO, represented by her parent MA.
EVELYN L. SARMIENTO; OINECA LOVE Q. MANUEL, represented by her guardian GRACE
Q. SHARIEM; JOHN RUSSELL I. SUAREZ, represented by his parent SONIA I. SUAREZ;
KRESTA J. SUICO, represented by her parent MARISSA J. SUICO; ANNA MICHELLE
and MAY JOANNA, all surnamed SUMULONG, represented by their parent FRANCISCO
M. SUMULONG; MA. ELAINE TALOSIG, represented by her parent AURORA A. TALOSIG;
CHARLENE AIKA TAN, represented by her parent ENG KUI C. TAN; KENO B. TIMPUG,
represented by his parent JAIME A. TIMPUG; MA. KATRINA M. TOLENTINO,
represented by her parent ASTERIA M. TOLENTINO; ROMMEL JOHN PAUL and ROLANDO,
all surnamed TORRES, represented by their parent DOMINGA TORRES; KIM CHARLES
R. TRINIDAD, represented by his parent MELCHOR S. TRINIDAD; LIBERY ANNE A.
TICZON, represented by LIBRADO D. TICZON; CINDY ANNE T. UMAGUING, represented
by her parent ZENAIDA T. UMAGUING; APRIL ABIGAIL A. VALENZUELA, represented
by her parent EDNA A. VALENZUELA;
ORLANDO and EVELINA, all surnamed VERGARA, represented by their parent
EVELINA R. VERGARA; JOHANN and DERIKKO, all surnamed VICENTE, represented by
their parent CECILIA M. VICENTE; DIANA RUBY and CLAIRE ANN, all surnamed
VILLANUEVA, represented by their parent LYDIA VILLANUEVA; MARIE FRANCE and
ANTHONY, all surnamed VILLAREAL, represented by their parent ANITA P.
VILLAREAL; TASEI YOSHIDA and NEMUEL O. VILLAROJAS, JR., represented by their
guardian NELIA G. VILLAROXAS; NILO P. VILLARUEL; FREDERICK A. VINAS,
represented by his parent BONIFACIO B. VINAS, JR.; DIANE CHRISTINE and
DARLENE, all surnamed VISPO, represented
by their parent ADELAIDA P. VISPO; RAY KRISTOFFER O. ZAPANTA, represented by
his parent CRISTINA O. ZAPANTA, in their individual capacities as defrauded
purchasers of policies of CAP shares
and for and in behalf of 780,603 others similarly situated, Petitioners, - versus - HON. ROMEO F. BARZA,* in his
capacity as
the Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial
Court of COLLEGE ASSURANCE PLAN PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 171681 Present: Ynares-Santiago, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ Promulgated: September 11, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging that
respondent Judge Romeo F. Barza of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
The facts are as follows:
CAP was incorporated on
On
Petitioners alleged that proceedings commenced in SEC
Case No. 05-365, but the prayer for the appointment of
a receiver and creation of a management committee was not acted upon by the
RTC.
On
On
Before this court is a Petition for
Rehabilitation filed by COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN] PHILIPPINES, INC. (CAP), a
corporation with principal office address at
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the
enforcement of all claims, whether for money or otherwise, and whether such
enforcement is by court action or otherwise, against COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN]
As a consequence of the stay order, the COLLEGE ASSURANCE [PLAN]
PHILIPPINES, INC. is prohibited from selling, encumbering, transferring, or
disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of
business. It is further prohibited from making any payment of its liabilities
outstanding as of the date of the filing of this petition on
x
x x x
All creditors and interested parties, including the Securities and
Exchange Commission, are directed to file and serve on
x
x x x
Mr. Mamerto A. Marcelo, Jr., CPA, with address at 1407 Cityland
Condominium 10 Tower 2, Ayala Avenue, cor. H.V. Dela Costa St., Salcedo
Village, Makati City is appointed Interim Rehabilitation Receiver of COLLEGE
ASSURANCE [PLAN]
PHILIPPINES, INC. He may discharge his duties and functions as such after
taking his oath to perform his powers, duties and functions faithfully and
posting a bond in the amount of P100,000.00 to guarantee the faithful
discharge of his duties and obedience to the orders of the court.
SO ORDERED.
On
On
For
determination is the issue of whether or not the petition for corporate
rehabilitation of College Assurance [Plan] Philippines, Inc. (CAP) should be
given due course.
The
petition alleges that CAP is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of
selling pre-need educational plans. It
was incorporated in 1980 with an initial authorized capital of P10,000,000.00.
Within two years of starting business, it was among the country’s top 2000
corporations, and by 2004, it had climbed in ranking to 146th place
with a 21% share of the pre-need market.
CAP has had 110,000 scholars enrolled; 84,490 scholars graduated;
780,000 planholders; 174,720 planholders being served; and has paid over P11.3
billion in tuition fees. However, it was
brought to financial difficulties by reason of the policy of deregulation
adopted by the Department of Education which resulted in the unbridled increase
in tuition fees over the years; the effect of the Asian financial crisis on
CAP’s trust fund investments; the onerous application by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) of the Pre-Need Uniform Chart Accounts (PNUCA) beginning in
2002; and the refusal of the SEC to renew CAP’s dealership license after its
expiration in September 2004 and the
cancellation of its permit to sell in August 2004. It is unable to service its debts as they
fall due and its assets are insufficient to cover its liabilities, owing in
great part to a bloated yet theoretical trust fund deficit and capital
deficiency reflected in its financial statements under the SEC’s Pre-Need
Rules, which it has asked the SEC to re-audit in light of the essential nature
of pre-need plans as investment contracts rather than insurance contracts.
In
support of its petition, CAP has submitted an eight-year Business Development
Plan under which it proposes to build up its equity and liquidity to meet
projected cash requirements and eliminate any equity impairment, and to build
up the asset base and liquidity of its trust fund to cover its trust variance
and meet its maturing obligations.
Pursuant
to this court’s Stay Order of
During
the summary hearing on
The Court has carefully evaluated the Petition
and the comments filed by the various parties relative thereto, and hereby
resolves to give due course to the petition.
Even as the Court notes the substantial questions posed by the SEC and
some creditors on the solvency of the corporation, it finds the interests of
the planholder/investing public as an overriding consideration which cannot be
summarily or injudiciously dismissed without a thorough evaluation by the
Rehabilitation Receiver of the corporation’s chances of being restored to a
successful operation and solvency if given the opportunity and considering
particularly the adverse results to the planholders of a liquidation scenario
as against its proposed rehabilitation under which they may possibly recover
100% of their contributions.
On the basis of the allegations of the petition
and the Business Development Plan, and in order that it may be well-guided in
its final disposition of the petition, the Court finds merit in the Petition
sufficient to warrant its referral to the Rehabilitation Receiver for study and
evaluation.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GIVE DUE
COURSE to the petition and to REFER the same, together with its Annexes and the
comments on the Petition, to the court-appointed Rehabilitation Receiver who is
directed to evaluate the rehabilitation plan and submit his recommendation
within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
Petitioners alleged that the Stay Order dated
Petitioners averred that the proceedings in Sp. Proc.
Case No. M-6144 were summary and non-adversarial in nature, and the filing of a
petition for relief or a motion to dismiss or for reconsideration was
prohibited. Having no speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, they filed this petition.
The pertinent issues raised are as follows:
1.
WHETHER
THE STAY ORDER AND THE ORDER GRANTING THE PETITION FOR REHABILITATION WAS
ISSUED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION, CONSIDERING THAT THE TUITION FEE
PAYMENTS DUE PLANHOLDERS’ BENEFICIARIES ARE FROM TRUST FUND ASSETS NOT INCLUDED
IN REHABILITATION PROCEEDINGS, IT BEING PROPERTY NOT BELONGING TO THE DEBTOR.
2.
WHETHER
THE STAY ORDER AND ORDER GRANTING THE
PETITION FOR REHABILITATION WAS ISSUED WITHOUT OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION
CONSIDERING THAT ALL THE REMAINING ASSETS OF THE CORPORATION IS TRACEABLE FROM
FUNDS COLLECTED FROM PLANHOLDERS; HENCE, SUBJECT TO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE PLANHOLDERS’ BENEFICIARIES.
3.
WHETHER
THE ORDER APPOINTING A REHABILITATION RECEIVER WAS ISSUED IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION CONSIDERING THAT A PREVIOUS INTRACORPORATE DISPUTE WITH PRAYER FOR
[THE] IMMEDIATE APPOINTMENT FOR RECEIVER WAS FILED AHEAD OF THE REHABILITATION
PROCEEDINGS.
4.
WHETHER
THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT’S ORDER DATED
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court[8]
is a remedy designed only for the correction of errors of jurisdiction or grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[9] In this case, it is undisputed that the RTC
has jurisdiction over the petition for rehabilitation under Section 2, Rule 3
of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2000).[10]
The main issue is whether or not respondent
Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the Order
dated September 13, 2005 staying
enforcement of all claims against CAP and the Order dated December 16, 2005
giving due course to CAP’s petition for rehabilitation.
Petitioners
allege that the relationship between a planholder and a pre-need corporation was
one of trust and not a debtor-creditor relationship. They avered that in 2002,
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented the New Pre-Need Rules,
which mandated a pre-need company to set up a trust fund for the benefit of the
beneficiary and in compliance with the agreement; hence, they contend that an
express trust relationship exists between the policyholder as trustor, the
pre-need firm as trustee, and the beneficiary as cestui que trust. Petitioners
add that Section 1.9 of the Pre-Need Rules defines “trust fund” as a fund set
up from the planholders’ payments, separate and distinct from the paid-up
capital of a registered Pre-Need Company, established with a trustee under a
trust agreement approved by the Commission, to pay for the benefits as provided
in the Pre-Need Plan.
Petitioners
assert that since a trust relationship exists between a planholder and a
pre-need company, CAP may not avail itself of rehabilitation proceedings to
stop payments from its trust assets to the beneficiaries.
Petitioners contend
that respondent Judge “acted completely without jurisdiction in giving due
course to the petition for rehabilitation, including planholders in the Stay
Order and including trust assets in the rehabilitation proceedings
notwithstanding the fact that there was a prior case filed by planholders for
receivership and management committee and that the assets of debtors do not
include the funds collected from planholders.”
Petitioners’
arguments do not persuade.
CAP
is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of selling pre-need
educational plans. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8799,
otherwise known as The Securities
Regulation Code, defines “pre-need plans” as “contracts which provide for
the performance of future services or the payment of future monetary considerations
at the time of actual need, for which planholders pay in cash or installment at
stated prices, with or without interest or insurance coverage, and includes
life, pension, education, interment, and other plans which the Commission may
from time to time approve.”
Section 16, Chapter IV of R.A. No. 8799 provides for
the regulation of pre-need plans by SEC, thus:
SEC.16.
Pre-Need Plans. -- No person shall
sell or offer for sale to the public any pre-need plan except in accordance
with rules and regulations which the Commission (SEC) shall prescribe. Such rules shall regulate the sale of
pre-need plans by, among other things, requiring the registration of pre-need
plans, licensing persons involved in the sale of pre-need plans, requiring disclosures
to prospective planholders, prescribing advertising guidelines, providing for
uniform accounting system, reports and recordkeeping with respect to such
plans, imposing capital, bonding and other financial responsibility, and
establishing trust funds for the payment of benefits under such plans.
The law governing corporate rehabilitation and
suspension of actions for claims against corporations is Presidential Decree (P.D.)
No. 902-A,[11]
as amended. Section 5 of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended by
P.D. No. 1758, enumerates the cases over which SEC has jurisdiction to hear and decide, which includes
“[p]etitions of corporations, partnerships or associations to be declared in
the state of suspension of payments in cases where the corporation, partnership
or association possesses sufficient property to cover all its debts, but
foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they respectively fall due or
in cases where the corporation, partnership or association has no sufficient
assets to cover its liabilities, but is under the management of a
Rehabilitation Receiver or Management Committee.” R.A. No. 8799, which took effect on August 8,
2000, transferred SEC’s jurisdiction over all cases enumerated under Section 5
of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, to the courts of general jurisdiction or the
appropriate Regional Trial Court.
On
The Interim Rules governed the proceedings in Sp.
Proc. No. M-6144. CAP filed the petition for corporate rehabilitation, because
it is “unable to service its debts as they fall due and its
assets are insufficient to cover
its liabilities.”[12]
CAP filed the petition under Section
1, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules, which provides:
SECTION 1. Who May Petition.—
Any debtor who foresees the
impossibility of meeting its debts when they respectively fall due, or any creditor or creditors holding at
least twenty-five percent (25%) of the debtor’s total liabilities, may petition
the proper Regional Trial Court to have the debtor placed under rehabilitation.[13]
Under the Interim Rules, “debtor” shall mean “any corporation, partnership, or
association, whether supervised or
regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission or other government
agencies, on whose behalf a petition for rehabilitation has been filed
under these Rules.”[14]
The Interim Rules does not distinguish whether a pre-need corporation like CAP cannot file a petition for rehabilitation before the RTC. Courts are not authorized to distinguish where the Interim Rules makes no distinction.[15]
Moreover,
under the Interim Rules, “claim”
shall include “all claims or demands of
whatever nature or character against a debtor or its property, whether
for money or otherwise.” “Creditor”
shall mean “any holder of a claim.”
Hence,
the claim of petitioners for payment of tuition fees from CAP is included in
the definition of “claims” under the Interim Rules.
What
is to be determined at this point is whether or not claims arising from the pre-need contracts between petitioners and CAP can be
stayed under Section 6, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules or Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A.
Section
6, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules provides:
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: (a) appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver and fixing his bond; (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
solidarily liable with the debtor; (c)
prohibiting the debtor from selling, encumbering, transferring, or
disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the ordinary course of
business; (d) prohibiting the debtor from making any payment of its liabilities
outstanding as of the date of filing of the petition; (e) prohibiting the debtor's suppliers of goods
or services from withholding supply of goods and services in the ordinary
course of business for as long as the debtor makes payments for the services
and goods supplied after the issuance of the stay order; (f) directing the
payment, in full, of all administrative expenses incurred after the issuance of
the stay order; (g) fixing the initial hearing on the petition not earlier than
forty-five (45) days but
not later than sixty (60) days from the filing thereof; (h) directing the
petitioner to publish the Order in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks; (i) directing all
creditors and all interested parties (including the Securities and Exchange
Commission) to file and serve on the debtor a verified comment on or opposition
to the petition, with supporting affidavits and documents, not later than ten
(10) days before the date of the initial hearing and putting them on notice
that their failure to do so will bar them from participating in the
proceedings; and (j) directing the
creditors and interested parties to secure from the court copies of the
petition and its annexes within such time as to enable themselves to file their
comment on or opposition to the petition and to prepare for the initial hearing
of the petition.
The
above provision does not provide that a claim arising from a pre-need
contract is an exception to the power of the trial court to stay enforcement of all claims upon the finding that the petition for rehabilitation is
sufficient in form and substance.
The
foregoing provision echoes the provision in Section 6(c) of the governing law,
P.D. No. 602-A, as amended by P.D. No. 1758, which mandates that “upon
appointment of a management committee, rehabilitation receiver, board or body, x x x 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.”
In
Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[16]
the Court held that “P.D. No. 902-A does not make any distinction as to what
claims are covered by the suspension of actions for claims against corporations
under rehabilitation x x x Thus, since the law does not make any exemptions or
distinctions, neither should we.”
The Interim Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2000 has been amended by the Rules of
Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation of 2009, which took effect on
Petitioners contend that
the relationship between a planholder and a pre-need corporation is one of
trust and not a debtor-creditor relationship. However, such a relationship has
not been properly established by petitioners. This Court is not a trier of
facts and cannot rule in this petition on whether the relationship between CAP
and the planholders is one of trust, absent a factual finding by the trial
court. Nevertheless, even if the relationship is one of trust, there is no
provision in the Interim Rules that a claim
arising from a trust relationship is excluded from the Stay Order.
Negros Navigation Co.,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals[18] explained
the reason for suspending all pending claims against a corporation under
receivership, thus:
x x x
x The stay order is effective on all creditors of the corporation without
distinction, whether secured or unsecured. All assets of a corporation under
rehabilitation receivership are held in trust for the equal benefit of all
creditors to preclude one from obtaining an advantage or preference over
another by the expedience of attachment, execution or otherwise. As between the
creditors, the key phrase is equality in equity. Once the corporation
threatened by bankruptcy is taken over by a receiver, all the creditors ought
to stand on equal footing. Not one of
them should be paid ahead of the others.
Petitioners
also contend that the
The
contention is without merit.
The
case for specific performance and/or annulment of contract (SEC Case No. 05-365) and CAP’s petition for rehabilitation
(Sp. Proc. No. M 6144) are two different cases; hence, respondent Judge has the
discretion to decide each case according to its merits. The case for specific performance
and/or annulment of contract was filed pursuant to the Interim Rules of
Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, while CAP’s petition for rehabilitation
was filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation. Under
Section 6, Rule 4 of the latter Interim Rules,[19]
respondent Judge has the authority to appoint a rehabilitation receiver after finding
the petition for rehabilitation to be sufficient in form and substance.
Absent
any provision in the Interim Rules, as amended, or P.D. No. 902-A exempting
claims arising from pre-need contracts from a court order staying enforcement
of all claims against the debtor/pre-need company, the Court holds that
respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in enforcing the Stay
Order against petitioners.
In
addition, respondent Judge did not gravely abuse its discretion in giving due
course to the petition for rehabilitation.
In the Order dated
The Court has carefully evaluated the Petition
and the comments filed by the various parties relative thereto, and hereby
resolves to give due course to the petition.
Even as the Court notes the substantial questions posed by the SEC and
some creditors on the solvency of the corporation, it finds the interests of the planholder/investing public as an
overriding consideration which cannot be summarily or injudiciously dismissed
without a thorough evaluation by the Rehabilitation Receiver of the
corporation’s chances of being restored to a successful operation and solvency if
given the opportunity and considering particularly the adverse results to the
planholders of a liquidation scenario as against its proposed rehabilitation
under which they may possibly recover 100% of their contributions.
On the basis of the allegations of the petition
and the Business Development Plan, and in order that it may be well-guided in
its final disposition of the petition, the Court finds merit in the Petition
sufficient to warrant its referral to the Rehabilitation Receiver for study and
evaluation.[20]
Grave abuse of
discretion implies capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to
lack of jurisdiction, or arbitrary and despotic exercise of power because of
passion or personal hostility.[21]
It must be as patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion or refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law.[22]
It is absent in this case.
Despite the
Court’s finding that respondent judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in
issuing the Orders staying the enforcement of all claims against CAP and in
giving due course to CAP’s petition for rehabilitation, petitioners are not
precluded from seeking other remedies available to them with the lower court.
The other issues
raised pertain to matters that were not discussed in the subject RTC Orders or are
not pertinent to the main issue of whether or not respondent Judge gravely abused
its discretion in including the claims of petitioners in the Stay Order; hence,
they do not fall within the scope of this petition for certiorari.
WHEREFORE,
the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Now an Associate Justice of
the Court of Appeals.
[1] Comment, rollo,
pp. 852-913
[2] Edna Valenzuela, Elsa S. Azurin,
Theresa J. Azurin, Mabel B. Camus,
[3] Valenzuela, et al. v. Sobrepeña, Jr., et al.
[4] Rollo, pp. 336-337.
[5] Rosalina C. Arao, Florencion
Bentulan, Yolanda Cernias, Juancito Dacanay, Richard Martin Esguerra, Manuela
Gepullano, Nancy Hilario, Marilyn Lajo, Carmen Ramos, and Lydia Rosario.
[6] Rollo, pp. 341-342.
[7] Memorandum, rollo, pp. 1057-1058.
[8] Rule 65, Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any
tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has
acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal,
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a
person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and
granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
[9] Land Bank of the
[10] Rule 3, Sec. 2. Venue.
— Petitions for rehabilitation pursuant to these Rules shall be filed in the
Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the territory where the debtor’s
principal office is located.
[11]
P.D.
No. 902-A is entitled Reorganization of
the Securities and Exchange Commission with Additional Powers and Placing the Said Agency under the Administrative
Supervision of the Office of the President.
[12] RTC Order dated
[13] (Emphasis supplied.)
[14] (Emphasis supplied.)
[15] Agpalo, Statutory Construction, Fifth Edition (2003), p. 198.
[16] G.R. Nos. 163156 & 166845,
[17] SEC. 7. Stay
Order. -- If the
court finds the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, it shall, not
later than five (5) working days from the filing of the petition, issue an
Order: (a) appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver and fixing his bond; (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 persons not solidarily liable with the debtor; provided, that
the stay order shall not cover claims against letters of credit and similar
security arrangements issued by a third party to secure the payment of the
debtor's obligations; provided, further, that the stay order shall not
cover foreclosure by a creditor of property not belonging to a debtor under
corporate rehabilitation; provided, however, that where the owner of
such property sought to be foreclosed is also a guarantor or one who is not
solidarily liable, said owner shall be entitled to the benefit of excussion as
such guarantor; (c) prohibiting the debtor from selling, encumbering,
transferring, or disposing in any manner any of its properties except in the
ordinary course of business; (d) prohibiting the debtor from making any payment
of its liabilities except as provided in items (e), (f) and (g) of this Section
or when ordered by the court pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 3; (e) prohibiting
the debtor's suppliers of goods or services from withholding supply of goods
and services in the ordinary course of business for as long as the debtor makes
payments for the services and goods supplied after the issuance of the stay
order; (f) directing the payment in full of all administrative expenses
incurred after the issuance of the stay order; (g) directing the payment of new
loans or other forms of credit accommodations obtained for the rehabilitation
of the debtor with prior court approval; (h) fixing the dates of the initial
hearing on the petition not earlier than forty-five (45) days but not later than sixty (60) days from the
filing thereof; (i) directing the petitioner to publish the Order in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines once a week for two (2)
consecutive weeks; (j) directing the petitioner to furnish a copy of the petition
and its annexes, as well as the stay order, to the creditors named in the
petition and the appropriate regulatory agencies such as, but not limited to,
the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the
Insurance Commission, the National Telecommunications Commission, the Housing
and Land Use Regulatory Board and the Energy Regulatory Commission; (k)
directing the petitioner that foreign creditors with no known addresses in the
Philippines be individually given a copy of the stay order at their foreign
addresses; (l) directing all creditors and all interested parties (including
the regulatory agencies concerned) to file and serve on the debtor a verified
comment on or opposition to the petition, with supporting affidavits and documents,
not later than fifteen (15) days before the date of the first initial hearing
and putting them on notice that their failure to do so will bar them from
participating in the proceedings; and
(m) directing the creditors and interested parties to secure from
the court copies of the petition and its annexes within such time as to enable
themselves to file their comment on or opposition to the petition and to
prepare for the initial hearing of the petition.
The issuance of a
stay order does not affect the right to commence actions or proceedings insofar
as it is necessary to preserve a claim against the debtor.
[18] Supra
note 16.
[19] SEC. 6. Stay
Order. -- If the court finds the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance, it shall, not
later than five (5) working days from the filing of the petition, issue an Order: (a) appointing a Rehabilitation Receiver and fixing his bond; (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 solidarily liable with the debtor; x x x .
[20] Rollo, p. 342. (Emphasis supplied.)
[21] Batul
v. Bayron, 468 Phil. 131, 148 (2004).
[22]