LEXBER, INC. VS. CAESAR M. AND CONCHITA B. DALMAN, G.R. No. 183587, April 20, 2015.
“x x x.
This possibility of rendering conflicting decisions among reviewing courts is one of the reasons why the Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2008 Rules) amended the Interim Rules’ provision on the available procedural remedies after the filing of the rehabilitation petition. This has also been further amended in the new Financial Rehabilitation Rules of Procedure (2013 Rules).
Under the Interim Rules, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading3. This is no longer true under the 2008 Rules and the new 2013 Rules, which implemented the procedural changes outlined below:
X x x.
Hence, under the 2008 Rules, an appeal (through a Rule 43 petition) may be filed only after the trial court issues an order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan. Any issue arising from a denied motion for reconsideration may only be raised as an assigned error in the Rule 43 petition and may not be questioned in a separate Rule 65 petition. The exception to this is when the issue only arose after the issuance of the order denying or approving the rehabilitation plan.
This procedural guideline had been further amended in the 2013 Rules where any relief from the trial court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration is no longer available. Moreover, the CA’s mode of review is now through Rule 65 and not Rule 43. But despite this further change, the 2013 Rules retained the guideline in the 2008 Rules that review may be sought from the CA only after the rehabilitation court issues an order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan.
Thus, if after the filing of the rehabilitation petition the trial court is satisfied that the jurisdictional requirements were complied with, the initial hearing shall commence and the petition for rehabilitation shall be given due course. At this stage, no appeal or certiorari petition may yet be filed as any remedy is only available after the order approving or disapproving the rehabilitation plan. This is to avoid the present situation where there are multiple petitions filed with the appellate courts from which conflicting decisions may be rendered.
X x x.”