Corporate Rehabilitation1. Veterans Philippine Scout Security Agency, Inc. v. First Dominion Prime Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 190907, August 23, 2012.DOCTRINE: The actions to be suspended cover all claims against a distressed corporation whether for damages founded on a breach of contract of carriage, labor cases, collection suits or any other claims of pecuniary nature. Jurisprudence is settled that the suspension of proceedings referred to in the law uniformly applies to "all actions for claims" filed against the corporation, partnership or association under management or receivership, without distinction, except only those expenses incurred in the ordinary course of business. The stay order is effective on all creditors of the corporation without distinction, whether secured or unsecured.2. Situs Development Corporation et al v. Asia Trust Bank et al., G.R. No. 180036, July 25, 2012.DOCTRINE: The Stay Order cannot suspend foreclosure proceedings already commenced over properties belonging to third party mortgagors. The Stay Order can only cover those claims directed against petitioner corporations or their properties, against petitioners guarantors, or against petitioners sureties who are not solidarily liable with them. Likewise, the enforcement of the mortgage lien cannot be considered as a claim against a guarantor or a surety not solidarily liable with the debtor corporations. While the third party mortgagors also executed Continuing Guaranty and Comprehensive Surety undertakings in favor of the bank, the latter did not proceed against them as individual guarantors or sureties. Rather, by initiating extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, the bank was directly proceeding against the property mortgaged to them by the spouses as security. 3. Yngson, Jr. (in his capacity as Liquidator of Arcam & Company, Inc.) v. Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 171132, August 15, 2012DOCTRINE: The creditor-mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage over a specific real property whether or not the debtor-mortgagor is under insolvency or liquidation proceedings. The right to foreclose such mortgage is merely suspended upon the appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver or upon the issuance of a stay order by the trial court. However, the creditormortgagee may exercise his right to foreclose the mortgage upon the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings or upon the lifting of the stay order. The court has already settled and upheld the right of the secured creditor to foreclose the mortgages in its favor during the liquidation of a debtor corporation. The creditor-mortgagee has the right to foreclose the mortgage over a specific real property whether or not the debtor-mortgagor is under insolvency or liquidation proceedings. The right to foreclose such mortgage is merely suspended upon the appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver or upon the issuance of a stay order by the trial court. However, the creditor mortgagee may exercise his right to foreclose the mortgage upon the termination of the rehabilitation proceedings or upon the lifting of the stay order.

4. Town and Country Enterprises Inc v. Honorable Quisumbing, G.R. No. 173610, 01 October 2012.DOCTRINE: Considering that Metrobank acquired ownership over the mortgaged properties upon the expiration of the redemption period on 6 February 2002, TCEI is also out on a limb in invoking the Stay Order issued by the Rehabilitation Court on 8 October 2002 and the approval of its rehabilitation plan. An essential function of corporate rehabilitation is, admittedly, the Stay Order which is a mechanism of suspension of all actions and claims against the distressed corporation upon the due appointment of a management committee or rehabilitation receiver. The Stay Order issued by the Rehabilitation Court cannot, however, apply to the mortgage obligations owing to Metrobank which had already been enforced even before TCEIs filing of its petition for corporate rehabilitation on 1 October 2002. In Equitable PCI Bank, Inc v. DNG Realty and Development Corporation, the Court upheld the validity of the writ of possession procured by the creditor despite the subsequent issuance of a stay order in the rehabilitation proceedings instituted by the debtor.