G.R. No. 165153 August 25, 2010 CARLOS DE CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.

and EDGARDO QUIOGUE, Respondents. FACTS: An illegal dismissal case was filed by Carlos De Castro (De Castro) against his employer Liberty Broadcasting Network Inc. (LBNI) with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The case reached the Supreme Court and the in its Decision, the Supreme Court found that De Castros dismissal was based on unsubstantiated charges. LBNI moves for a reconsideration based on the arguments among others that LBNI is currently under rehabilitation, hence, the proceedings in this case must be suspended. LBNI points out that it filed, with the RTC of Makati, a petition for Corporate Rehabilitation with Prayer for Suspension of Payments and the RTC issued a Stay Order whereupon the enforcement of all claims against LBNI whether for money or otherwise and whether such enforcement is by Court action or otherwise be stayed. LBNIs motion was denied for being premature, as de Castro then had yet to file his reply to LBNIs comment on the petition. Thereafter, nothing was heard from LBNI regarding the Stay Order or the rehabilitation proceedings it instituted before the RTC of Makati. Even the memorandum that LBNI filed with the Court contained no reference to the rehabilitation proceedings. The same was even filed more than 180 days from the date of the initial hearing. ISSUE: WON the proceedings in the illegal dismissal case be suspended. HELD: Negative. Issues raised in previous pleadings but not included in the memorandum shall be deemed waived or abandoned. Thus, on account of LBNIs omission, only the issues raised in the parties memoranda principally, the validity of de Castros dismissal from LBNI were considered by the Court in resolving the case. Notably, LBNIs memorandum was filed more than 180 days from the date of the initial hearing. Under Section 11, Rule 4 of the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Interim Rules), a petition for rehabilitation shall be dismissed if no rehabilitation plan is approved by the court upon the lapse of 180 days from the date of initial hearing. While the Interim Rules grant extension beyond the 180-day period, no such extension was alleged in this case; in fact, no mention at all was made in LBNIs memorandum of the rehabilitation proceedings. With the failure of LBNI to raise rehabilitation proceedings in its memorandum, the Court had sufficient grounds to suppose that the rehabilitation petition had been dismissed by the time the case was submitted for decision.

G.R. No. 190107 June 6, 2011 JAPRL DEVELOPMENT CORP., PETER RAFAEL C. LIMSON and JOSE UY AROLLADO, Petitioners vs. SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, Respondent FACTS: JAPRL Development Corporation (JAPRL) was granted credit facility by Security Bank Corporation (SBC). Rafael C. Limson (Limson) and Jose Uy Arollado (Arollado), JAPRL Chairman and President, respectively guaranteed the due and full payment and performance of JAPRLs guaranteed obligations under the credit facility. SBC soon discovered material inconsistencies in the financial statements submitted by JAPRL when it applied for a credit facility, which made SBC, conclude that JAPRL committed misrepresentation. SBC demanded payment from JAPRL, Limson and Arollado but the same was not heeded. SBC then filed a complaint for sum of money against JAPRL, Limson and Arollado. Meanwhile, a Stay Order was issued by the RTC of Quezon City wherein JAPRLs petition for rehabilitation was lodged. The Makati RTC ordered the suspension of SBCs complaint for sum of money until disposition by the Quezon City RTC of JAPRLs petition for rehabilitation. SBC contended that the suspension of the proceedings should only be with respect to JAPRL but not with respect to Limson and Arollado invoking Section 6(b) of the Interim Rules of Procedure of Corporate Rehabilitation provides that a stay order does not apply to sureties who are solidarily liable with the debtor. Limson and Arollado raised defenses against SBCs claim that they acted as sureties of JAPRL. ISSUE: May a Court suspends the proceedings against a surety of a corporation which is in the process of rehabilitation. HELD: A creditor can demand payment from the surety solidarily liable with the corporation seeking rehabilitation it being not included in the list of stayed claims. Indeed, Section 6(b) of the Interim Rules of Procedure of Corporate Rehabilitation provides that a stay order does not apply to sureties who are solidarily liable with the debtor. Limson and Arollado, as sureties, whose liability is solidary cannot, therefore, claim protection from the rehabilitation court, they not being the financially-distressed corporation that may be restored, not to mention that the rehabilitation court has no jurisdiction over them. IN FINE, SBC can pursue its claim against Limson and Arollado despite the pendency of JAPRLs petition for rehabilitation. For, by the CSA in favor of SBC, it is the obligation of the sureties, who are therein stated to be solidary with JAPRL, to see to it that JAPRLs debt is fully paid. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.