Back

Viva Shipping vs. Keppel Philippines etc.

VIVA SHIPPING LINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KEPPEL PHILIPPINES MINING, INC., METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, CITY OF BATANGAS, CITY OF LUCENA, PROVINCE OF QUEZON, ALEJANDRO OLIT, NIDA MONTILLA, PIO HERNANDEZ, EUGENIO BACULO, AND HARLAN BACALTOS, RESPONDENTS.

G.R. No. 177382 | 2016-02-17

D E C I S I O N
 
LEONEN, J.:
 
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure to assail the final orders and decisions in corporate rehabilitation cases filed under the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation.[1] Liberality in the application of the rules is not an end in itself. It must be pleaded with factual basis and must be allowed for equitable ends. There must be no indication that the violation of the rule is due to negligence or design. Liberality is an extreme exception, justifiable only when equity exists.

On October 4, 2005, Viva Shipping Lines, Inc. (Viva Shipping Lines) filed a Petition for...