1. Advent Capital and Finance Corp. v. Alcantara, 664 SCRA Due to this, Atty.

this, Atty. Concepcion filed a Motion before the

224 (2012)
Doctrine: 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.
Rehabilitation Court to direct Belson to release the cash
dividends. Atty. Concepcion argued that has rehabilitation
receiver, he had the duty to take custody and control of Advent
Capital’s assets including the sum of money Belson has on
behalf of Advent Capital’s Trust Department.

The Alcantaras argued that the money in the trust account

The Interim Rules do not exempt a company under belongs to them under their Trust Agreement with Advent
rehabilitation from availing of proper legal procedure for Capital. Thus, Advent Capital has no right to claim dividends
collecting debt that may be due it. generated from such investment. Advent Capital merely held
the dividends in trust for the Alcantaras, the trustors-
beneficiaries. The Alcantaras thereafter concluded that the
rehabilitation court had no jurisdiction over the subject
dividends.
Facts: Advent Capital filed a petition for rehabilitation with RTC-
Makati. The RTC named Atty. Concepcion as rehabilitation
receiver. Upon audit of Advent Capital’s books, Atty.
Rehabilitation Court: granted Atty. Concepcion’s Motion citing
Concepcion found that respondents Alcantaras owed Advent
R. 59, Sec. 6 of the Rules of Court stating that a receiver has the
Capital trust fees earned for managing the several trust
duty to immediately take possession of all of the corporation’s
accounts of the Alcantaras’. Atty. Concepcion then requested
assets and administer the same for the benefit of corporate
Belson Securities, Inc. (Belson) to deliver to him as the receiver,
creditors. He has the duty to collect debts owing to the
cash dividends Belson has under the Alcantaras’ Trust Account.
corporation, which debts form part of its assets.
Atty. Concepcion claimed that the dividends, as trust fees,
formed part of Advent Capital’s assets. Belson refused citing
the Alcantaras’ objections and absence of an appropriate order
Benson thereafter turned over the dividends to Atty.
from the rehabilitation court.
Concepcion. The Alcantaras, on the other hand, filed a Special
Civil Action of Certiorari before the CA seeking to annul the
rehabilitation court’s order.
CA: The Alcantaras owned the dividends. The dividends do not
form part of Advent Capital’s assets as contemplated under the
Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation.
(Interim Rules).
CA opined that the rehabilitation proceedings
referred only to assets and liabilities of the company
proper, not of its Trust Department which held assets
belonging to other people.
Issues:
1. WON the cash dividends are corporate assets of Advent
or not?
2. WON Rehabilitation Court has jurisdiction over the
case?
Held:
1. No, they are not corporate assets of Advent. The real
owner of the trust property is the trustor-beneficiary.
The practice in banks is that they automatically collect
management fees from the funds that their clients entrust to
them for investment or lending to others. 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. But in this case, Advent Capital does not
allege that Belson had already deducted the management fees
owing to it from the Alcantaras’ portfolio at the end of the each
calendar quarter. It did not exercise its right to cause automatic
deduction at the end of every quarter as provided in the Trust
Agreement. That was its fault. Thus, based on the Trust
Agreement, 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.
Advent Capital could not dispose of 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. Advent Capital could neither assign or
encumber the portolio or its income without the consent of the
Alcantaras as stipulated in the Trust Agreement.
2. No, the Rehabilitation Court does not have jurisdiction
over the case since the cash dividends are not owned by
Advent Capital.
 the first place, the Interim Rules do not exempt a company
under rehabilitation from availing of proper legal procedure for
Advent Capital’s recourse is to file a separate action for
collecting debt that may be due it. Secondly, Court records
collection to recover the trust fees it earned. Having failed to
show that Advent Capital had in fact sought to recover one of
collect the trust fees at the end of each calendar quarter as
its assets by filing a separate action for replevin involving a car
stated in the contract, all it had against the Alcantaras was a
that was registered in its name.
claim for payment which is a proper subject for an ordinary
action for collection.
2. METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. ASB
HOLDINGS, INC.,
Rehabilitation proceedings are summary and non- adversarial
G.R. No. 166197 February 27, 2007
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 Topic: Purpose of Corporate Rehabiliation
inconsistent with the commercial nature of a rehabilitation
DOCTRINE: The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is to
case. The latter must be resolved quickly and expeditiously for
enable the company to gain new lease on life and thereby
the sake of the corporate debtor, its creditors and other
allows creditors to be paid their claims from its
interested parties. Thus, the Interim Rules “incorporate the
earnings. Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of
concept of prohibited pleadings, affidavit evidence in lieu of
corporate life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate
oral testimony, clarificatory hearings instead of the traditional
the financially distressed corporation to its former position of
approach of receiving evidence, and the grant of authority to
successful operation and solvency. This is in consonance with
the court to decide the case, or any incident, on the basis of
the State’s objective to promote a wider and more meaningful
affidavits and documentary evidence.”
equitable distribution of wealth to protect investments and the
public.
Advent Capital’s claim is disputed and requires a full trial on the
merits. It must be resolved in a separate action where the
FACTS:
Alcantaras’ claim and defenses may also be presented and
heard. Advent Capital cannot say that the filing of a separate The Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company is a creditor bank of
action would defeat the purpose of corporate rehabilitation. In respondent corporations, collectively known as the ASB Group
of Companies, owner and developer of condominium and real Plan and appointing Mr. Fortunato Cruz as rehabilitation
estate projects. Petitioner bank extended loans secured by real receiver
estate mortgages to respondent corporations, specifically, to
Petitioner bank filed with the SEC En Banc a Petition for
ASB Realty Corporation and ASB Development Corporation
Certiorari praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining
amounting to ₱523.5 million and ₱1.073 billion, respectively.
order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin its
implementation. The SEC En Banc denied the petition and
affirmed the SEC Hearing Panel’s Order. Petitioner bank then
The ASB Group of Companies filed with the SEC a Petition For
filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Review which was
Rehabilitation With Prayer For Suspension Of Actions And
denied by the appellate court. Petitioner bank’s Motion for
Proceedings pursuant to P.D. No. 902-A. The Hearing Panel of
Reconsideration was likewise denied.
the SEC, finding the petition sufficient in form and substance,
issued a 60-day Suspension Order. Thereafter, respondent
corporations submitted to SEC for its approval a Rehabilitation
ISSUE: Whether the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan violates
Plan.
petitioner bank’s constitutional right against impairment of
contracts and right to due process:
Petitioner bank objected to the said Rehabilitation Plan, (1) by impairing its lien over the mortgaged properties; and
specifically the arrangement concerning the mode of payment
(2) by compelling it to accept a dacion en pago arrangement of
by respondent corporations. Petitioner bank claimed that the
the mortgaged properties based on ASB Group of Companies’
arrangement "is not acceptable" because: (1) it does not agree
transfer values and and to waive the interest, penalties and
with the valuation of the properties offered for dacion; (2) the
other charges after the SEC issued its Stay Order.
waiver of interests, penalties and charges after April 30, 2000 is
not feasible; and (3) since the proposed dacion is not
acceptable to the bank, there is no basis to release the
HELD:
properties which serve as collateral for the loans.
(1) The Court is not convinced that the approval of the
Rehabilitation Plan impairs petitioner bank’s lien over the
The SEC Hearing Panel, finding petitioner bank’s objections mortgaged properties. Section 6 [c] of P.D. No. 902-A provides
unreasonable, issued an Order approving the Rehabilitation that "upon appointment of a management committee,
rehabilitation receiver, board or body, pursuant to this Decree,
all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships or
associations under management or receivership pending
before any court, tribunal, board or body shall be suspended."
By that statutory provision, it is clear that the approval of the
Rehabilitation Plan and the appointment of a rehabilitation
receiver merely suspend the actions for claims against
respondent corporations. Petitioner bank’s preferred status
over the unsecured creditors relative to the mortgage liens is
retained, but the enforcement of such preference is suspended.
The loan agreements between the parties have not been set
aside and petitioner bank may still enforce its preference when
the assets of ASB Group of Companies will be liquidated.
Considering that the provisions of the loan agreements are
merely suspended, there is no impairment of contracts,
specifically its lien in the mortgaged properties.
(2) Likewise, there is no compulsion on the part of petitioner
bank to accept a dacion en pago arrangement of the mortgaged
properties based on ASB Group of Companies’ transfer values
and to condone interests and penalties. Based on the
explanation in the Rehabilitation Plan, the dacion en pago
program and the intent of respondent ASB Group of Companies
to ask creditors to waive the interests, penalties and related
charges are not compulsory in nature. They are merely
proposals for the creditors to accept. In fact, there was already
an initial discussion on these proposals and the majority of the
secured creditors showed their desire to complete dacion en
pago transactions, but they must be "based on MUTUALLY
AGREED UPON TERMS."
Therefore, the approval of the Rehabilitation Plan by the SEC
Hearing Panel, affirmed by both the SEC En Banc and the Court
of Appeals, is valid and in furtherance of the rationale behind
P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, which is "to effect a feasible and
viable rehabilitation" of ailing corporations which affect the
public welfare.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant petition for review on
certiorari. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 77260 are AFFIRMED.
3. Wonder Book Corporation v. Philippine Bank of
Communications
GR. NO. 187316 JULY 16, 2012
DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
Wonder Book Corporation (Wonder Book) is a
corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws
engaged in the business of retailing books, school and office
supplies, greeting cards and other related items. It operates the
chain of stores known as the Diplomat Book Center. Wonder
Book and eight (8) other corporations, collectively known as the
Limtong Group of Companies (LGC), filed a joint petition for
rehabilitation with the RTC, which the court subsequently
approved. After LGC’s Rehabilitation Plan was approved,
Wonder Book filed its own Petition for Rehabilitation before
the RTC and cited the following as causes for its inability to pay
its debts as they fall due:
(a) high interest rates, penalties and charges imposed by
its creditors;
(b) low demand for gift items and greeting cards due to
the widespread use of cellular phones and economic
recession;
(c) competition posed by other stores; and
(d) the fire on July 19, 2002 that destroyed its
inventories worth P264 Million, which are insured for
P245 Million but yet to be collected.
PBCOM filed an opposition asserting primarily that it is
clear from Wonder Book’s financial statements that it is
insolvent and can no longer be rehabilitated. The bank also
raised that there is no guaranty that the insurance claim of
Wonder Book on its destroyed inventories will be paid. It also
stressed that Wonder Book’s sales and marketing plan does not
specifically discuss how sales and marketing will be carried out
alleging that the strategies might not really produce profits. RTC
sided with Wonder Book and approved its Rehabilitation Plan.
PBCOM filed a Petition for Review, which the CA
granted. CA noted that the total assets of Wonder Book is only
P144,922,218.00 whereas its liabilities totaled to
P306,141,399.00. In effect, the debt ratio of Wonder Book is
2.11 to 1. This means that Wonder Book has P2.11 pesos in debt
for every peso of asset. Obviously, Wonder Book is in terrible
financial condition as it does not have enough assets to pay its
obligations. Wonder Book instituted the present petition
claiming that the CA erred in dismissing its petition for
rehabilitation.
ISSUE:
Whether or Not the CA was correct in dismissing
Wonder Book’s petition for rehabilitation.
HELD:
CA was correct in ruling against Wonder Book. SC
explained that rehabilitation is not the proper remedy for
Wonder Book’s dire financial condition. Given that it is actually
insolvent and not just suffering from temporary liquidity (d) cash flow cannot sustain daily operations; and (e) negative
problems, rehabilitation is not a viable option. net worth and the assets are near full depreciation or fully
depreciated.

Rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate

life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the 4. PHILIPPINE ISLANDS CORPORATION FOR TOURISM
corporation to its former position of successful operation and DEVELOPMENT, INC., v. VICTORIAS MILLING COMPANY, INC.
solvency. The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is to enable
G.R. NO. 167674 : June 17, 2008
the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby allow
creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings. The
rehabilitation of a financially distressed corporation benefits its
DOCTRINE:
employees, creditors, stockholders and, in a larger sense, the
general public.

The purpose for the suspension of the proceedings is to prevent

a creditor from obtaining an advantage or preference over
Rehabilitation is therefore available to a corporation
another and to protect and preserve the rights of party litigants
who, while illiquid, has assets that can generate more cash if
as well as the interest of the investing public or creditors. Such
used in its daily operations than sold. Its liquidity issues can be
suspension is intended to give enough breathing space for the
addressed by a practicable business plan that will generate
management committee or rehabilitation receiver to make the
enough cash to sustain daily operations, has a definite source
business viable again, without having to divert attention and
of financing for its proper and full implementation, and
resources to litigations in various fora. The suspension would
anchored on realistic assumptions and goals. This remedy
enable the management committee or rehabilitation receiver to
should be denied to corporations whose insolvency appears to
effectively exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-
be irreversible and whose sole purpose is to delay the
judicial interference that might unduly hinder or prevent the
enforcement of any of the rights of the creditors, which is
"rescue" of the debtor company. To allow such other action to
rendered obvious by the following: (a) the absence of a sound
continue would only add to the burden of the management
and workable business plan; (b) baseless and unexplained
committee or rehabilitation receiver, whose time, effort and
assumptions, targets and goals; (c) speculative capital infusion
resources would be wasted in defending claims against the
or complete lack thereof for the execution of the business plan;
corporation instead of being directed toward its restructuring
and rehabilitation.
FACTS:
On March 7, 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for collection of
a sum of money with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary attachment against VMC before the RTC of Makati
City. In its complaint, PICTD alleged that VMC obtained loans
from the CICM Missionaries, Inc. in the amount
of P3,259,988.08 and from the Congregation of the Most Holy
Redeemer in the amount of P1,211,596.00 Both loans were
assigned to PICTD by way of a deed of assignment.
When the loans matured on March 3, 1997, PICTD sought
payment from VMC but the latter failed to pay, prompting
PICTD to file the abovementioned complaint. The RTC ordered
the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against VMC's
properties. However, upon VMC's motion, the writ of
attachment was lifted when VMC deposited a counter
attachment bond.
VMC filed a petition5before the SEC to declare itself in a state
of suspension of payments, alleging that although it has
sufficient property to cover all of its debts, it foresees its
inability to pay them when they become due because of
financial difficulties. VMC sought the appointment of a
management committee that would oversee the
implementation of its proposed rehabilitation plan so that it
can continue its operations and thus enable it to meet its
obligations and satisfy its liabilities.
SEC: Ordered the suspension of all actions or claims against
VMC pending before any court, tribunal, office, board, body
and/or commission. he SEC ruled that PICTD is merely a general
creditor who was able to seize the property of the debtor
through an attachment issued before judgment and did not
have a prior security agreement with VMC that will ripen into a
creditor's right in case of default. Thus, its claim against VMC
could not take precedence over the secured creditors.
RTC: PIC's Motion to Lift [the] Suspension of Proceedings is
hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
CA: Affirmed SEC’s order.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not SEC erred in suspending the proceedings of the
collection suits filed by PICTD against VCM.
RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court agreed to sustain the ruling of the
appellate court upholding the SEC Order suspending the
proceedings of the collection suit filed by PICTD against VMC.
Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A as amended by P.D. No. 1799,
enumerating the powers of the SEC provides:
SEC. 6. In order to effectively exercise such
jurisdiction, the Commission shall possess the
following powers:
c) To appoint one or more receivers of the
property, real and personal, which is the subject
of the action pending before the Commission
whenever necessary in order to preserve the
rights of the parties-litigants and/or protect the
interest of the investing public and creditors:
Provided, finally, That upon appointment of a
management committee, rehabilitation
receiver, board or body, pursuant to this
Decree, all actions for claims against
corporations, partnerships or associations
under management or receivership pending
before any court, tribunal, board or body shall
be suspended accordingly
The purpose for the suspension of the proceedings is to
prevent a creditor from obtaining an advantage or
preference over another and to protect and preserve
the rights of party litigants as well as the interest of the
investing public or creditors. Such suspension is
intended to give enough breathing space for the
management committee or rehabilitation receiver to
make the business viable again, without having to divert
attention and resources to litigations in various fora.
The suspension would enable the management
committee or rehabilitation receiver to effectively
exercise its/his powers free from any judicial or extra-
judicial interference that might unduly hinder or
prevent the "rescue" of the debtor company. To allow
such other action to continue would only add to the
burden of the management committee or rehabilitation
receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be
wasted in defending claims against the corporation
instead of being directed toward its restructuring and
rehabilitation.
5. RUBBERWORLD, INC., v. NLRC, et al
G.R. No. 126773 April 14, 1999
Topic: Difference between Corporate Rehabilitation and
Corporate Liquidation
Doctrine: The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is precisely
to enable the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby
allow creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings. On the
other hand, in insolvency proceedings, the company stops
operating, and the claims of creditors are satisfied from the
assets of the insolvent corporation.
Facts: Petitioner is a domestic corporation which used to be in
the business of manufacturing footwear, bags and garments. It
filed with the SEC a petition for suspension of payments and
prayed (1) that be declared in a state of suspension of
payments; (2) that the SEC accordingly issue an order
restraining its creditors from enforcing their claims against the
petitioner; (3) for the creation of a management committee;
and (4) for the approval of the proposed rehabilitation plan and
memorandum of agreement between petitioner corporation
and its creditors. SEC granted the petition. Accordingly, with the
creation of the Management Committee, all actions for claims
against Rubberworld Philippines, Inc. pending before any court,
tribunal, office, board, body were deemed suspended.
Private respondents, who claim to be employees of petitioner,
filed against petitioners their respective complaints for illegal
dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and payment of
separation pay, among others. Petitioners moved to suspend
the proceedings in the above labor cases on the strength of the
SEC Order. LA denied the motion holding that the injunction in
the SEC Order applied only to the enforcement of established
rights and did not include the suspension of proceedings
involving claims against petitioner which have yet to be
ascertained. Furthermore, LA held that the order of the SEC
suspending all actions for claims against petitioners does not
cover the claims of private respondents in the labor cases
because said claims and the concomitant liability of petitioners
still had to be determined, thus carrying no dissipation of the
assets of petitioners. NLRC affirmed the LA ruling.
Issue: Whether the respondent NLRC erred in denying
petitioners' motion to suspend proceedings despite the SEC
Order directing the suspension of all actions against a company
under the first stages of insolvency proceedings. - YES
Held:
1. Where the petition filed is one for declaration of a state of
suspension of payments due to a recognition of the inability to
pay one's debts and liabilities, and where the petitioning
corporation either: (a) has sufficient property to cover all its
debts but foresees the impossibility of meeting them when they
fall due (solvent but illiquid) or (b) has no sufficient property
(insolvent) but is under the management of a rehabilitation
receiver or a management committee, the applicable law is P.D.
902-A (…that upon appointment of a management committee,
rehabilitation receiver… all actions for claims against
corporations… under management or receivership pending
before any court,… shall be suspended accordingly). However,
if the petitioning corporation has no sufficient assets to cover
its liabilities and is not under a rehabilitation receiver or a
management committee created under P.D. 902-A and does
not seek merely to have the payments of its debts suspended,
but seeks a declaration of insolvency . . . the applicable law is
the Insolvency Law on voluntary Insolvency.
Here, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Suspension of
Payments, as well as a proposed rehabilitation plan. SEC
ordered the creation of a management committee and the
suspension of all actions for claims against petitioner. Clearly,
the applicable law is PD 902-A.
The justification for the automatic stay of all pending actions
for claims is to enable the management committee or the
rehabilitation receiver to effectively exercise its/his powers free
from any judicial or extra-judicial interference that might
unduly hinder or prevent the rescue of the debtor company. To
allow such other actions to continue would only add to the
burden of the management committee or rehabilitation
receiver, whose time, effort and resources would be wasted in
defending claims against the corporation instead of being
directed toward its restructuring and rehabilitation.
2. The respondents contend that automatic stay under PD 902-
A is not applicable to the instant case; otherwise, the
preference granted to workers by Article 110 of the Labor Code
would be rendered ineffective. However, the SC held that this
contention is misleading. The preferential right of workers and
employees under Article 110 of the Labor code may be invoked
only upon the institution of insolvency or judicial liquidation
proceeding.
Indeed, it is well-settled that "a declaration of bankruptcy or a
judicial liquidation must be present before preferences over
various money claims may be enforced." But debtors resort to
preference of credit — giving preferred creditors the rights to
have their claims paid ahead of those of other claimants — only
when their assets are insufficient to pay their debts fully.
The purpose of rehabilitation proceedings is precisely to enable
the company to gain a new lease on life and thereby allow
creditors to be paid their claims from its earnings. On the other
hand, in insolvency proceedings, the company stops operating,
and the claims of creditors are satisfied from the assets of the
insolvent corporation. The present case involves the
rehabilitation, not the liquidation, of petitioner. Hence, the
preference of credit granted to workers or employees under
Article 110 of the Labor Code is not applicable.
Other Notes: The solicitor general representing NLRC, argues
that the rationale for an automatic stay will not be frustrated
even if the NLRC proceeds with the disposition of these labor
cases, because any favorable obtained by the private
respondents would only establish their rights as creditors. The
SC ruled reiterated that the law provides that all claims for
actions "shall be suspended accordingly." No exception in favor
of labor claims is mentioned in the law. To rule otherwise would
open the floodgates to other similarly situated claimants and
forestall if not defeat the rescue efforts.
Veteran's Bank (PVB). The petitioners in this case filed claims
for accrued and unpaid employee wages and benefits. After
lengthy proceedings, only partial payments of sums were paid
and other benefits remain unpaid.
In January 1992, the Congress enacted RA 7169 providing for
the rehabilitation of the PVB and the petitioners filed with the
labor tribunals their residual claims for benefits and for
reinstatement upon reopening of the bank. In May 1992, the
Central Bank issued a certificate of authority allowing PVB to
open.
However, despite the legislative mandate for rehabilitation and
reopening of PVB, the respondent judge continued with the
liquidation proceedings of the bank.

ISSUE: Whether a liquidation court may continue with

liquidation proceedings of the Philippine Veterans Bank (PNB)
6. Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union v. Vega, 360
when Congress had mandated its rehabilitation and reopening
SCRA 33

HELD: No, the enactment of RA 7169 has rendered the

DOCTRINE: Both liquidation and rehabilitation cannot be
liquidation court functus officio and the respondent judge has
undertaken at the same time. To allow the liquidation
been stripped of the authority to issue orders involving acts of
proceedings to continue would seriously hinder the
liquidation.
rehabilitation of the subject bank.

Liquidation, in corporation law, connotes a winding up of a

FACTS: In 1985, the Central Bank filed with the RTC Manila,
corporation so that assets are distributed to those entitled to
petition for assistance in the liquidation of the Philippine
receive them. It is process of reducing assets to cash,
discharging liabilities and dividing surplus or loss. On the other
hand, rehabilitation contemplates a continuance of corporate
life and activities in an effort to restore and reinstate the
corporation to its former position of successful operation and
solvency.
It is crystal clear that the concept of liquidation is diametrically
opposed or contrary to the concept of rehabilitation, such that
both cannot be undertaken at the same time. To allow the
liquidation proceedings to continue would seriously hinder the
rehabilitation of the subject bank.

The respondent judge is permanently enjoined from further

proceeding with the liquidation proceedings of PVB.