Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4K views

    RCBC Vs IAC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shambiruar
    RCBC foreclosed on properties mortgaged by BF Homes in October 1984 after BF Homes filed for rehabilitation but before the SEC appointed a management committee in March 1985. The Court held that under PD 209-A, suspension of claims only takes effect upon appointment of a management committee, not just filing for rehabilitation. Therefore, RCBC's foreclosure preceding the committee's appointment was valid according to the clear language of the law, even if departing from it could be seen as more logical. The Court cannot depart from unambiguous law through judicial legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    RCBC Vs IAC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shambiruar
    4K views1 page
    RCBC foreclosed on properties mortgaged by BF Homes in October 1984 after BF Homes filed for rehabilitation but before the SEC appointed a management committee in March 1985. The Court held that under PD 209-A, suspension of claims only takes effect upon appointment of a management committee, not just filing for rehabilitation. Therefore, RCBC's foreclosure preceding the committee's appointment was valid according to the clear language of the law, even if departing from it could be seen as more logical. The Court cannot depart from unambiguous law through judicial legislation.

    Original Description:

    Stat Con

    Original Title

    RCBC vs IAC Case Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    RCBC foreclosed on properties mortgaged by BF Homes in October 1984 after BF Homes filed for rehabilitation but before the SEC appointed a management committee in March 1985. The Court held that under PD 209-A, suspension of claims only takes effect upon appointment of a management committee, not just filing for rehabilitation. Therefore, RCBC's foreclosure preceding the committee's appointment was valid according to the clear language of the law, even if departing from it could be seen as more logical. The Court cannot depart from unambiguous law through judicial legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    4K views1 page

    RCBC Vs IAC Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    shambiruar
    RCBC foreclosed on properties mortgaged by BF Homes in October 1984 after BF Homes filed for rehabilitation but before the SEC appointed a management committee in March 1985. The Court held that under PD 209-A, suspension of claims only takes effect upon appointment of a management committee, not just filing for rehabilitation. Therefore, RCBC's foreclosure preceding the committee's appointment was valid according to the clear language of the law, even if departing from it could be seen as more logical. The Court cannot depart from unambiguous law through judicial legislation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs.

    Intermediate Appellate Court and BF Homes


    G.R. No. 74851 (December 9, 1999)
    Facts:
    Petitioner RCBC is a mortgagor-creditor of the party respondent BF Homes. BF Homes, being a
    distressed firm, filed before the Securities and Exchange Commission a Petition for Rehabilitation and for
    Declaration of Suspension of Payments. Consequently, RCBC requested the sheriff of Rizal to levy on
    execution the properties of party respondent, and consequently obtained favorable judgment. RCBC being
    the highest bidder during the public auction is now seeking for the transfer certificate of titles from the
    Register of Deeds issued in its name. It is worthy to note that it was on October 26, 1984 that RCBC
    obtained favor over the execution of the respondents properties, and it was only on March 18, 1985 that a
    Management Committee was organized by the SEC for BF Homes.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the Court may depart from the words of the law which clearly provides that a creditor may
    levy execution on a firms properties when such execution precedes SECs organization of a Management
    Committee to act as its receiver.
    Held:
    PD 209-A states that suspension of claims against a corporation under rehabilitation is counted or figured
    up only upon the appointment of a management committee or a rehabilitation receiver. The holding that
    suspension of actions for claims against a corporation under rehabilitation takes effect as soon as the
    application or a petition for rehabilitation is filed with the SEC may, to some, be more logical and wise
    but unfortunately, such is incongruent with the clear language of the law. Suspension of actions for claims
    commences only from the time a management committee or receiver is appointed by the SEC. Petitioner
    RCBC rightfully moved for the extrajudicial foreclosure of its mortgage on October 26, 1984 because a
    management committee was not appointed by the SEC until March 18, 1985.
    No matter how practical and noble a reason would be, in order to depart from the words of the law stated
    in clear and unambiguous manner, would be to encroach upon legislative prerogative to define the
    wisdom of the law. Such is plainly judicial legislation.

    You might also like