Advent Capital Vs Alcantara

ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION vs ALCANTARA
G.R. No. 183050/ January 25, 2012

ABAD, J.:
FACTS:
On July 16, 2001 petitioner Advent Capital and Finance Corporation (Advent Capital)
filed a petition for rehabilitation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. The RTC
named Atty. Danilo L. Concepcion as rehabilitation receiver. Upon audit of Advent Capital’s
books, Atty. Concepcion found that respondents Nicasio and Editha Alcantara (collectively, the
Alcantaras) owed Advent Capital P27,398,026.59, representing trust fees that it supposedly
earned for managing their several trust accounts
.
Prompted by this finding, Atty. Concepcion requested Belson Securities, Inc. (Belson) to
deliver to him, as Advent Capital’s rehabilitation receiver, the P7,635,597.50 in cash dividends
that Belson held under the Alcantaras’ Trust Account 95-013. Atty. Concepcion claimed that the
dividends, as trust fees, formed part of Advent Capital’s assets. Belson refused, however, citing
the absence of an appropriate order from the rehabilitation court.
Thus, Atty. Concepcion filed a motion before the rehabilitation court to direct Belson to
release the money to him. He said that, as rehabilitation receiver, he had the duty to take custody
and control of Advent Capital’s assets, such as the sum of money that Belson held on behalf of
Advent Capital’s Trust Department. The Alcantaras opposed and claimed that the money in the
trust account belonged to them under their Trust Agreement with Advent Capital. The latter,
they said, could not claim any right or interest in the dividends generated by their investments
since Advent Capital merely held these in trust for the Alcantaras, the trustors-beneficiaries. For
this reason, Atty. Concepcion had no right to compel the delivery of the dividends to him as
receiver. The Alcantaras concluded that, under the circumstances, the rehabilitation court had no
jurisdiction over the subject dividends.
ISSUE:
Are the cash dividends held by Belson and claimed by both the Alcantaras and Advent
Capital part of corporate assets of the latter that the rehabilitation court may, upon motion,
require to be conveyed to the rehabilitation receiver for his disposition?
RULING:
No. Advent Capital asserts that the cash dividends in Belson’s possession formed part of
its assets based on paragraph 9 of its Trust Agreement. That it could automatically deduct its
management fees from the Alcantaras’ portfolio that they entrusted to it. Paragraph 9 of the
Trust Agreement provides that Advent Capital could automatically deduct its trust fees from the
Alcantaras’ portfolio, “at the end of each calendar quarter,” with the corresponding duty to
submit to the Alcantaras a quarterly accounting report within 20 days after.
But the problem is that the trust fees that Advent Capital’s receiver was claiming were for
past quarters. Based on the stipulation, these should have been deducted as they became due. As
it happened, at the time Advent Capital made its move to collect its supposed management fees,
it neither had possession nor control of the money it wanted to apply to its claim. Belson, a third
party, held the money in the Alcantaras’ names. Whether it should deliver the same to Advent
Capital or to the Alcantaras is not clear. What is clear is that the issue as to who should get the
same has been seriously contested.
The practice in the case of banks is that they automatically collect their management fees
from the funds that their clients entrust to them for investment or lending to others. But the
banks can freely do this since it holds or has control of their clients’ money and since their trust
agreement authorized the automatic collection. If the depositor contests the deduction, his
remedy is to bring an action to recover the amount he claims to have been illegally deducted
from his account.
Here, Advent Capital does not allege that Belson had already deducted the management
fees owing to it from the Alcantaras’ portfolio at the end of each calendar quarter. Had this been
done, it may be said that the money in Belson’s possession would technically be that of Advent
Capital. Belson would be holding such amount in trust for the latter. And it would be for the
Alcantaras to institute an action in the proper court against Advent Capital and Belson for misuse
of its funds.
But the above did not happen. Advent Capital did not exercise its right to cause the
automatic deduction at the end of every quarter of its supposed management fee when it had full
control of the dividends. That was its fault. For their part, the Alcantaras had the right to
presume that Advent Capital had deducted its fees in the manner stated in the contract. The
burden of proving that the fees were not in fact collected lies with Advent Capital.
Further, Advent Capital or its rehabilitation receiver cannot unilaterally decide to apply
the entire amount of cash dividends retroactively to cover the accumulated trust fees. Advent
Capital merely managed in trust for the benefit of the Alcantaras the latter’s portfolio, which
under Paragraph 2 of the Trust Agreement, includes not only the principal but also its income or
proceeds. The trust property is only fictitiously attributed by law to the trustee “to the extent that
the rights and powers vested in a nominal owner shall be used by him on behalf of the real
owner.”
The real owner of the trust property is the trustor-beneficiary. In this case, the trustors-
beneficiaries are the Alcantaras. Thus, Advent Capital could not dispose of the Alcantaras’
portfolio on its own. The income and principal of the portfolio could only be withdrawn upon
the Alcantaras’ written instruction or order to Advent Capital. The latter could not also assign or
encumber the portfolio or its income without the written consent of the Alcantaras. All these are
stipulated in the Trust Agreement.
Rehabilitation proceedings are summary and non-adversarial in nature, and do not

contemplate adjudication of claims that must be threshed out in ordinary court
proceedings. Adversarial proceedings similar to that in ordinary courts are inconsistent with the
commercial nature of a rehabilitation case. The latter must be resolved quickly and
expeditiously for the sake of the corporate debtor, its creditors and other interested parties. Thus,
the Interim Rules “incorporate the concept of prohibited pleadings, affidavit evidence in lieu of
oral testimony, clarificatory hearings instead of the traditional approach of receiving evidence,
and the grant of authority to the court to decide the case, or any incident, on the basis of
affidavits and documentary evidence.

Advent Capital Vs Alcantara

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advent Capital Vs Alcantara

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advent Capital Vs Alcantara

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVENT CAPITAL AND FINANCE CORPORATION vs ALCANTARA

G.R. No. 183050/ January 25, 2012

Rehabilitation proceedings are summary and non-adversarial in nature, and do not

You might also like