3aepubltc of tbe ilbtltpptnes

~upreme QCourt
;fflantla
FIRST DIVISION
PUERTO AZUL LAND, INC.,
Petitioner,

G.R. No. 184000

Present:
- versus -

PACIFIC
WIDE
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,*

REALTY

SERENO, C.J., Chairperson,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BERSAMIN,
PEREZ, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

Respondent.
Promulgated:

SEP 1 7 2011t

x---------------------------------------------------------~-------x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2

dated February 21, 2008 and the Resolution 3 dated July 22, 2008 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92691 which set aside the
Decision4 dated December 13, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 24 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 04-110914, thereby dismissing the
revised rehabilitation plan of petitioner Puerto Azul Land, Inc. (PALI).

Substituted as party-respondent in lieu of Cameron Granville Asset Management (SPY-AMC), Inc.

(See Court Resolution dated April 15, 2009; rollo, p. 237.)
Id. at 12-46.
Id. at 51-67. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Sato, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza
(now a member of this Court) and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring.
Id. at 68-69.
Id. at 132-145. Penned by Judge Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

The Facts
PALI is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of developing
the Puerto Azul Complex located in Ternate, Cavite into a satellite city,
described as a self-sufficient and integrated tourist destination community
with residential areas, resort/tourism, and retail commercial centers with
recreation areas like golf courses, jungle trails, and white sand lagoons.5 To
finance the full operation of its business, PALI obtained loans in the total
principal amount of 640,225,324.00 from several creditors, among which
were East Asia Capital, Export and Industry Bank (EIB), Philippine National
Bank, and Equitable PCI Bank (EPCIB), secured by real estate owned by
PALI and by accommodation mortgagors under a Mortgage Trust Indenture.6
Foreseeing the impossibility of meeting its debts and obligations to its
creditors as they fall due, PALI, on September 14, 2004, filed a Petition for
Suspension of Payments and Rehabilitation 7 before the RTC, docketed as
Civil Case No. 04-110914, attributing its financial difficulties to: (a) the
denial by the Philippine Stock Exchange of its application for the public
listing of its shares of stock which resulted in the loss of potential investors
and real estate buyers; (b) the 1997 Asian financial crisis; and (c) the real
estate bubble burst. 8 Attached to PALIs petition was its proposed
Rehabilitation Plan.9
On September 17, 2004, the RTC, finding PALIs petition to be
sufficient in form and substance, issued a Stay Order10 pursuant to Section 6,
Rule 4 of the Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation11 (Interim Rules),
among others, (a) staying the enforcement of all claims against the debtor,
its guarantors, and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor, (b)
prohibiting PALI from making any payment of its liabilities outstanding as
of the date of filing of the petition, (c) prohibiting PALI from selling,
encumbering, transferring, or disposing any of its properties except in the
ordinary course of business, and (d) appointing Mr. Patrick V. Caoile as
Rehabilitation Receiver, conditioned upon his posting of a bond in the
amount of 1,000,000.00.
During the initial hearing, PALI adduced evidence showing
compliance with the jurisdictional requirements. Thereafter, the RTC heard
the comments and opposition of the creditors to the petition and the
Rehabilitation Plan. 12 Later, creditor EPCIB was substituted by Cameron
Granville Asset Management (SPV-AMC), Inc. (CGAM).13
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Id. at 14-15.
Id. at 52.
Id. at 70-76.
Id. at 71.
Id. at 52 and 73. See also id. at 146-166.
Id. at 77-80.
A.M. No. 008-10-SC (2000).
Rollo, pp. 133-134.
Id. at 134.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

On April 20, 2005, the Rehabilitation Receiver filed his Rehabilitation

Report and Recommendation,14 recommending PALIs rehabilitation over its
dissolution and liquidation, followed by a Revised Rehabilitation Plan on
June 9, 2005.15
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision16 dated December 13, 2005, the RTC approved PALIs
Revised Rehabilitation Plan under the following terms and conditions:
1. The creditors shall have, as first option, the right to be paid with
real estate properties being offered by the petitioner in dacion en pago,
which shall be implemented under the following terms and conditions:
a) The properties offered by the petitioner shall be
appraised by three appraisers, one to be chosen by the
petitioner, a second to be chosen by the bank creditors and
the third to be chosen by the Receiver. The average of the
appraisals of the three (3) chosen appraisers shall be the
value to be applied in arriving at the dacion value of the
properties. In case the dacion amount is less than the total
of the secured creditors principal obligation, the balance
shall be restructured in accordance with the schedule of
payments under option 2, paragraph (a). In case of excess,
the same shall [be] applied in full or partial payment of the
accrued interest on the obligations. The balance of the
accrued interest, if any, together with the penalties shall [be]
condoned.
2. Creditors who will not opt for dacion, shall be paid in
accordance with the restructuring of the obligations as recommended by
the Receiver as follows:
a) The obligations to secured creditors will be
subject to a 50% haircut of the principal, and repayment
shall be semi-annually over a period of 10 years, with 3year grace period. Accrued interests and penalties shall be
condoned. Interest shall be paid at the rate of 2% p.a. for
the first 5 years, and 5% p.a. thereafter until the obligations
are fully paid. The petitioner shall allot 50% of its cash
flow available for debt service for secured creditors. Upon
completion of payments to government and employee
accounts, the petitioners cash flow available for debt
service shall be used until the obligations are fully paid.
b) One half (1/2) of the principal of the petitioners
unsecured loan obligations to other creditors shall be settled
through non-cash offsetting arrangements, with the balance
payable semi-annually over a period of 10 years, with 3year grace period, with interest at the rate of 2% p.a. for the
first 5 years and 5% p.a. from the 6th year onwards until the
14
15
16

Id. at 81-112 (with Annexes).

Id. at 113-131.
Id. at 132-145.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

obligations are settled in full. Accrued interest and penalties

shall be condoned.
c) Similarly, one half (1/2) of the petitioners
obligations to trade creditors shall be settled through noncash offsetting arrangements. The cash payments shall be
made semi-annually over a period of 10 years on a pari
passu basis with the bank creditors, without interest,
penalties and other charges of similar kind.17

Dissatisfied, CGAM filed a petition for review before the CA,

docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92691, objecting to the approval of PALIs
Revised Rehabilitation Plan on the following grounds: (a) insufficiency in
the substance of the petition; (b) the Revised Rehabilitation Plan was not
approved within 180 days from the date of the initial hearing; (c) the 50%
haircut reduction on the principal obligation and the condonation of
penalties and interests violated the constitutional guarantee against nonimpairment of contracts; and (d) the Revised Rehabilitation Plan does not
give due regard to the interests of the secured creditors.18
CGAM was later substituted by its assignee, herein respondent Pacific
Wide Realty Development Corporation (PWRDC), 19 in the proceedings
before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision20 dated February 21, 2008, the CA granted PWRDCs
petition for review and reversed the December 13, 2005 RTC Decision,
thereby dismissing PALIs petition for rehabilitation.
It held that the causes of PALIs inability to pay its debts were not
alleged in the petition with sufficient particularity as to have allowed the
RTC to properly evaluate whether or not to issue a Stay Order and
eventually approve its rehabilitation.21 It further ruled that when the RTC
approved PALIs Revised Rehabilitation Plan on December 13, 2005, the
mandatory 180-day period allowed under the rules for the approval or
disapproval of the same had already lapsed, warranting the dismissal of the
petition for rehabilitation.22 It also found the 50% haircut reduction on the
principal loan and the condonation of penalties and interests to be an
impairment of the parties loan agreements.23

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Id. at 142-144.
Id. at 22.
See footnote 1 in the CA Decision; id. at 51.
Id. at 51-67.
Id. at 60.
Id. at 61-62.
Id. at 62-63.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

PALI moved for reconsideration which the CA denied in a

Resolution24 dated July 22, 2008, prompting the filing of the instant petition.
PALI invokes a liberal construction of the provisions of the Interim
Rules, and cites Sections 5(d), 6(c), and 6(d) of Presidential Decree No. 902A whose objectives are to effect a feasible and viable rehabilitation and to
give enough breathing space for the management committee or rehabilitation
receiver to make the business viable anew.25 It also posits that the CA erred
in construing the 180-day period under Section 11, Rule 4 of the Interim
Rules to be mandatory, stating that the purpose and intent of the rules should
have been considered. 26 Finally, it asserts that the approved Revised
Rehabilitation Plan is neither unreasonable nor prejudicial to the interests of
its creditors, adding that PALIs rehabilitation is the best way to protect the
interests of all parties concerned and its continued operation remains the
only viable and feasible solution to meet the desired objectives.27
Significantly, another PALI creditor, EIB, filed a petition for review
before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 92695,28 contesting the same
December 13, 2005 RTC Decision. The CA, however, dismissed the petition
and affirmed the aforesaid RTC Decision. Consequently, EIBs assignee,
PWRDC, elevated the matter to the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 180893,
and was consolidated with G.R. No. 178768, a related case also commenced
by PWRDC essentially involving the coverage of the RTCs Stay Order over
the security posted by an accommodation mortgagor.29
The Court resolved both cases in a Decision30 dated November 25,
2009, ruling: (a) in G.R. No. 180893, that there was nothing unreasonable or
onerous in PALIs Revised Rehabilitation Plan nor was there a violation of
the non-impairment clause, in effect upholding the RTCs approval of
PALIs rehabilitation;31 and (b) in G.R. No. 178768, that the RTC committed
no reversible error when it removed TCT No. 133164 from the coverage of
the Stay Order since the Interim Rules only covers the suspension of the
enforcement of all claims against the debtor, its guarantors, and sureties not
solidarily liable with the mortgagor, and is silent on the enforcement of
claims against accommodation mortgagors.32
24
25
26
27
28
29

30
31
32

Id. at 68-69.
Id. at 27-28.
Id. at 35-36.
Id. at 40-41.
See CA Decision dated May 17, 2007 penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle with Associate
Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Mariflor Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; id. at 167-179.
G.R. No. 178768 stemmed from CA-G.R. SP No. 91996 wherein the CA through a Decision dated
March 16, 2007 nullified the RTCs Order dated October 19, 2005, also in Civil Case No. 04-110914,
declaring that the properties covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. (TCT) 133164, one of the
properties mortgaged to secure PALIs loans belonging to an accommodation mortgagor (i.e., Ternate
Utilities, Inc.), was subject to and covered by the Stay Order dated September 17, 2004. (See Pacific
Wide Realty and Development Corporation v. Puerto Azul Land, Inc., G.R. Nos. 178768 and 180893,
November 25, 2009, 605 SCRA 503.)
Id.
Id. at 516-517.
Id. at 521-522.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue for resolution is whether or not the CA erred in
reversing the December 13, 2005 RTC Decision, thereby dismissing PALIs
Revised Rehabilitation Plan.
The Courts Ruling
The Court finds in favor of PALI.
As adverted to earlier, the validity of PALIs rehabilitation was
already raised as an issue by PWRDC and resolved with finality by the
Court in its November 25, 2009 Decision in G.R. No. 180893 (consolidated
with G.R. No. 178768). The Court sustained therein the CAs affirmation of
PALIs Revised Rehabilitation Plan, including those terms which its
creditors had found objectionable, namely, the 50% haircut reduction of
the principal obligations and the condonation of accrued interests and
penalty charges. The relevant portion of the Courts ruling reads:
In G.R. No. 180893, the rehabilitation plan is contested on the
ground that the same is unreasonable and results in the impairment of the
obligations of contract. PWRDC contests the following stipulations in
PALIs rehabilitation plan: fifty percent (50%) reduction of the principal
obligation; condonation of the accrued and substantial interests and
penalty charges; repayment over a period of ten years, with minimal
interest of two percent (2%) for the first five years and five percent (5%)
for the next five years until fully paid, and only upon availability of cash
flow for debt service.
We find nothing onerous in the terms of PALIs rehabilitation plan.
The Interim Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation provides for means of
execution of the rehabilitation plan, which may include, among others, the
conversion of the debts or any portion thereof to equity, restructuring of
the debts, dacion en pago, or sale of assets or of the controlling interest.
The restructuring of the debts of PALI is part and parcel of its
rehabilitation. Moreover, per findings of fact of the RTC and as affirmed
by the CA, the restructuring of the debts of PALI would not be prejudicial
to the interest of PWRDC as a secured creditor. Enlightening is the
observation of the CA in this regard, viz.:
There is nothing unreasonable or onerous about the
50% reduction of the principal amount when, as found by
the court a quo, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) acquired
the credits of PALI from its creditors at deep discounts of
as much as 85%. Meaning, PALIs creditors accepted only
15% of their credits value. Stated otherwise, if PALIs
creditors are in a position to accept 15% of their credits
value, with more reason that they should be able to accept
50% thereof as full settlement by their debtor. x x x. 33
33

Id. at 516.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

Since the issue on the validity, as well as regularity of the December

13, 2005 RTC Decision approving PALIs Revised Rehabilitation Plan had
already been resolved, the Court, in line with the res judicata principle, is
constrained to grant the present petition and, consequently, reverse the
assailed CA decision.
Res judicata (meaning, a matter adjudged) is a fundamental
principle of law which precludes parties from re-litigating issues actually
litigated and determined by a prior and final judgment.34 It means that a
final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is
conclusive of the rights of the parties or their privies in all later suits on all
points and matters determined in the former suit.35
Res judicata has two (2) concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment
in which the judgment or decree of the court of competent jurisdiction on the
merits concludes the litigation between the parties, as well as their privies,
and constitutes a bar to a new action or suit involving the same cause of
action before the same or other tribunal. The second is conclusiveness of
judgment in which any right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or
necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a competent
court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by
the judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and
their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter of
the two actions is the same.36
There is a bar by prior judgment where there is identity of parties,
subject matter, and causes of action between the first case where the
judgment was rendered and the second case that is sought to be
barred.37 There is conclusiveness of judgment, on the other hand, where
there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no identity of
causes of action.38
As may be gleaned from the foregoing antecedents, the present case
and G.R. No. 180893 involve the same parties, i.e., PWRDC and PALI, the
same subject matter, i.e., PALIs rehabilitation, and the same causes of
action, i.e., the alleged violation of PWRDCs rights as creditor by virtue of
the RTCs approval of PALIs Revised Rehabilitation Plan. Thus, with the
identity of all three (3) elements present in the previously decided case and
this one, it is then clear that the principle of res judicata should heretofore
apply. Accordingly, the Courts November 25, 2009 Decision in G.R. No.
180893 (consolidated with G.R. No. 178768) bars the re-litigation of the
34
35
36
37
38

Union Bank of the Phil. v. ASB Development Corp., 582 Phil. 559, 579 (2008).
See Pryce Corporation v. China Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 172302, February 18, 2014, citing
Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, G.R. No. 149624, September 29, 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 479-480.
Borra v. CA, G.R. No. 167484, September 9, 2013, 705 SCRA 222, 236-237, citing Antonio v. Sayman
Vda. de Monje, id. at 480-481.
Borra v. CA , id. at 236.
Id. at 237.

Decision

G.R. No. 184000

issue of the validity and regularity of the approved Revised Rehabilitation

Plan between PWRDC and PALI. As the plan's validity had already been
upheld, PWRDC is now bound by such adverse ruling which had long
attained finality. As a result, the CA Decision opposite to the aforestated
Court Decision should be set aside, and the petition herein be granted.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated

February 21, 2008 and the Resolution dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92691 are hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.

J.1E~ERNABE

ESTELA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

~~~~

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

JO

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify 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.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice