1. Pacific Banking Corp. v. CA, G.R. No.

109373, March 20, 1995 (242 SCRA 492)

Elucidating the crucial distinction between an ordinary action and a special proceeding, Chief Justice
Moran states:"

Action is the act by which one sues another in a court of justice for the enforcement or protection of a
right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong while special proceeding is the act by which one seeks to
establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact. Hence, action is distinguished from special
proceeding in that the former is a formal demand of a right by one against another, while the latter is
but a petition for a declaration of a status, right or fact. Where a party litigant seeks to recover property
from another, his remedy is to file an action. Where his purpose is to seek the appointment of a
guardian for an insane, his remedy is a special proceeding to establish the fact or status of insanity
calling for an appointment of guardianship.

Considering this distinction, a petition for liquidation of an insolvent corporation should be classified a
special proceeding and not an ordinary action. Such petition does not seek the enforcement or
protection of a right nor the prevention or redress of a wrong against a party. It does not pray for
affirmative relief for injury arising from a party's wrongful act or omission nor state a cause of action
that can be enforced against any person.

What it seeks is merely a declaration by the trial court of the corporation's insolvency so that its
creditors may be able to file their claims in the settlement of the corporation's debts and obligations.
Put in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's debts and obligations. Put
in another way, the petition only seeks a declaration of the corporation's state of insolvency and the
concomitant right of creditors and the order of payment of their claims in the disposition of the
corporation's assets.

Contrary to the rulings of the Fourteenth Division, liquidation proceedings do not resemble petitions for
interpleader. For one, an action for interpleader involves claims on a subject matter against a person
who has no interest therein. This is not the case in a liquidation proceeding where the Liquidator, as
representative of the corporation, takes charge of its assets and liabilities for the benefit of the
creditors. He is thus charged with insuring that the assets of the corporation are paid only to rightful
claimants and in the order of payment provided by law.

Rather, a liquidation proceeding resembles the proceeding for the settlement of state of deceased
persons under Rules 73 to 91 of the Rules of Court. The two have a common purpose: the determination
of all the assets and the payment of all the debts and liabilities of the insolvent corporation or the
estate. The Liquidator and the administrator or executor are both charged with the assets for the
benefit of the claimants. In both instances, the liability of the corporation and the estate is not disputed.
The court's concern is with the declaration of creditors and their rights and the determination of their
order of payment.

Furthermore, as in the settlement of estates, multiple appeals are allowed in proceedings for liquidation
of an insolvent corporation.
In G.R. No. 112991 (the case of the Stockholders/Investors), the Liquidator's notice of appeal was filed
on time, having been filed on the 23rd day of receipt of the order granting the claims of the
Stockholders/Investors. However, the Liquidator did not file a record on appeal with the result that he
failed to perfect his appeal. As already stated a record on appeal is required under the Interim Rules and
Guidelines in special proceedings and for cases where multiple appeals are allowed. The reason for this
is that the several claims are actually separate ones and a decision or final order with respect to any
claim can be appealed. Necessarily the original record on appeal must remain in the trial court where
other claims may still be pending.

The Union's contention is untenable. In liquidation proceedings, the function of the trial court is not
limited to assisting in the implementation of the orders of the Monetary Board. Under the same section
(§29) of the law invoked by the Union, the court has authority to set aside the decision of the Monetary
Board "if there is a convincing proof that the action is plainly arbitrary and made in bad faith."

2. Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 163604, May 6, 2005(458 SCRA 200)

Since Title XI of the Family Code, entitled SUMMARY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IN THE FAMILY LAW,
contains the following provision, inter alia:

Art. 238. Unless modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules in this Title shall apply in all
casesprovided for in this Codes requiring summary court proceedings. Such cases shall be decided in an
expeditious manner without regard to technical rules. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

there is no doubt that the petition of Apolinaria Jomoc required, and is, therefore, a summary
proceeding under the Family Code, not a special proceeding under the Revised Rules of Court appeal for
which calls for the filing of a Record on Appeal. It being a summary ordinary proceeding, the filing of a
Notice of Appeal from the trial court’s order sufficed.

On the alleged procedural flaw in petitioner’s petition before the appellate court. Petitioner’s failure to
attach to his petition before the appellate court a copy of the trial court’s order denying its motion for
reconsideration of the disapproval of its Notice of Appeal is not necessarily fatal, for the rules of
procedure are not to be applied in a technical sense. Given the issue raised before it by petitioner, what
the appellate court should have done was to direct petitioner to comply with the rule.