ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs. JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ)
“x x x.
On the Ground of Failure to Observe
the Reglementary Period
the Reglementary Period
On the respondent’s failure to observe the reglementary
period prescribed by the Rules, we find the respondent’s explanation to be
satisfactory.
Section 11, Rule 4 of the previous Rules provides:
Sec. 11. Period of the Stay Order. – xxx
The petition shall be dismissed if no rehabilitation plan is
approved by the court upon the lapse of one hundred eighty (180) days from the
date of the initial hearing. The court may grant an extension beyond this
period only if it appears by convincing and compelling evidence that the debtor
may successfully be rehabilitated. In no instance, however, shall the period
for approving or disapproving a rehabilitation plan exceed eighteen (18) months
from the date of filing of the petition.37
Under this provision, the matter of who would grant the
extension beyond the 180-day period carried a good measure of ambiguity as it
did not indicate with particularity whether the rehabilitation court could act
by itself or whether Supreme Court approval was still required. Only recently
was this uncertainty clarified when A.M.
No. 00-8-10-SC, the 2008 Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation,
took effect.
Section 12, Rule 4 of the Rules provides:
Section 12. Period to Decide Petition. - The court shall
decide the petition within one (1) year from the date of filing of the
petition, unless the court, for good cause shown, is able to secure an
extension of the period from the Supreme Court.38
Since the new Rules only took effect on January 16, 2009
(long after the respondent’s approval of the rehabilitation plan on December 3,
2007), we find no basis to hold the respondent liable for the extension she
granted and for the consequent delay.
X x x.”
