G.R. No. 107002 October 7, 1994
Finasia Investments and Finance Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Court of Appeals, Hon. Fernando P. Agdamag, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138, and Rosito A. Castro, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Finasia Investments and Finance Corporation (FINASIA) extended a loan to Felicisimo Francisco in 1982. As security, Francisco executed a Real Estate Mortgage over a parcel of land owned by private respondent Rosito A. Castro, purportedly under a Special Power of Attorney executed by Castro in favor of Francisco. FINASIA later assigned its collectibles, including this loan, to Pioneer Savings and Loan Bank (PSLB). On January 27, 1990, Castro filed a complaint against FINASIA, PSLB, and Francisco before the Regional Trial Court of Makati, praying for the declaration of nullity of the Special Power of Attorney, the Real Estate Mortgage, and the Deed of Assignment, alleging that his signature on the power of attorney was a forgery. Subsequently, FINASIA was placed under receivership by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). On June 21, 1991, FINASIA filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in the trial court, invoking Section 6(c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A, as amended, which mandates the suspension of all actions for claims against corporations under management or receivership. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the action was not a “claim” within the contemplation of the law. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial, prompting FINASIA to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether private respondent Rosito A. Castro’s action for the declaration of nullity of the Special Power of Attorney, Real Estate Mortgage, and Deed of Assignment constitutes a “claim” under Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A, as amended, thereby warranting the suspension of proceedings.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held that the word “claim” as used in Section 6(c) of P.D. No. 902-A refers to debts or demands of a pecuniary nature, or the assertion of a right to have money paid. Castro’s cause of action, which seeks the nullification of documents based on alleged forgery, is not a demand for the payment of a debt or the enforcement of a pecuniary liability. The principal purpose of the suit is to obtain a judicial declaration on the validity of the Special Power of Attorney, not to assert a right to payment from FINASIA. The suspension provision aims to prevent creditors from obtaining preferences over others and to protect the interests of creditors and the investing public. Since Castro is not shown to be a creditor of FINASIA, a ruling on the nullity of the documents would not confer any pecuniary advantage or preference upon him. Therefore, the action does not fall within the purview of claims subject to mandatory suspension under the law.