REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION

FOR CORPORATE REHABILITATION

SEC Case No. 11-155

CORPORATION,
Petitioner.
x--------------------------------------------------------x

COMMENT

COMES NOW, (the “creditor”, for brevity), through counsel,

and unto this Honorable Court, most respectfully submits this

Comment to the Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation filed by Hi Corp.,

to wit:

1. A perusal of the petition (as well as the annexes/attachments

thereto) would show that, although the same is sufficient in

form, the grounds stated therein by petitioner Hi Corp. to

support its petition have no clear factual basis.

2. Petitioner Hi has cited the failure of the Aerosmith concert to

materialize as the start of its financial downfall. It alleged that

it invested the amount of “some 53 million for the supposed

Aerpsmith concert, which turned out to be non-existent” 1. As a

result thereof, “petitioner Hi has been plunged into great

dislocation in its finances” 2.

3. However, aside from these bare allegations, no proof has been

shown by petitioner Hi that it indeed incurred such financial

1
Page 10 of the Petition
2
Ibid.
 loss from the non-staging of the said concert. Further, there

has been no allegation nor proof presented by Hi that it

commenced the necessary legal proceedings against the

appropriate parties in order for it to recover its investment. As

such, the allegations regarding the failed concert and the

concomitant monetary loss suffered by Hi appear to be merely

a convenient excuse for Hi to file the present petition and to,

thus, avoid the cases/suits its creditors may file against it in

order to enforce their legal and just claims.

4. Petitioner then went on to state that it subsequently rejected

other projects which likewise led to lost business opportunities.

Again, no proof has been shown by petitioner to substantiate

this allegation.

5. It is submitted that the principal cause for the financial crisis

petitioner presently finds itself in is its lack of sound financial

management. In fact, petitioner has admitted this much in its

petition3.

6. Notwithstanding the present financial situation of petitioner,

herein creditor likewise submits that there is no basis for Hi to

claim for rehabilitation under Republic Act No. 10142. As it

has repeatedly stated in its petition, Hi still is, and continues

to enjoy the reputation of being, the “best in town as the

supplier of sounds, lights, stage, equipment and all the

necessary logistics needed in every project.” 4 Taking into the

account such admission and the lack of proof as to the

principal cause of its alleged financial problems, it could be

concluded that petitioner has merely resorted to this legal

3
Par. 4.2.d of the Petition
4
Par. 4.4. of the Petition
 proceeding to justify its non-settlement of the just and valid

claims of its creditors. Rather than pay such claims, which it

can do so and should have done so earlier, petitioner would

rather evade payment of the same by filing this petition.

7. Petitioner has set forth, in its petition, its business plan and

has attached, for this purpose, its proposed Rehabilitation

Plan5. It is submitted that Hi’s proposed assumption of new

business activities6 as well as the proposed entry of a “white

knight” “that will join petitioner Hi with new funds of at least P

100 million”7 are too speculative at this point. Herein creditor

is not prepared, nor is it convinced, to accept such

hypothetical assumptions of petitioner, especially at this time

when petitioner has violated its commitment to herein creditor

to settle its outstanding obligation. Further, such speculation

on the part of petitioner is squarely contrary to the rationale

behind Republic Act No. 10142. As stated in Section 2 thereof,

to wit:

“It is the policy of the State to encourage debtors, both

juridical and natural persons, and their creditors to collectively

and realistically resolve and adjust competing claims and

property rights. In furtherance thereof, the State shall ensure a

timely, fair, transparent, effective and efficient rehabilitation or

liquidation of debtorsxxxx”.

As stated above, the proposed business plan of Hi, as

presented in its petition, is neither realistic, effective nor efficient,

and is thus clearly contrary to the above-quoted provisions.

5
Annex “C” of the petition.
6
Par. 6.17 of the petition
7
Par. 6.14 of the petition
8. Given the above, the following may be deduced: one, that

petitioner, although experiencing financial difficulties, has

not sufficiently shown that it is insolvent and, thus, in

need of rehabilitation; second, that the assumptions in its

business plan are highly speculative and, thus, cannot be

considered effective nor efficient and; third, that it can be

concluded that the present petition was filed merely to

delay the enforcement of the just and valid claims of Hi’s

creditors.

9. Consequently, it is the position of herein creditor that the

present petition must be dismissed for lack of legal and factual

basis which would justify the rehabilitation of Hi. Such

dismissal is likewise warranted by the provisions of Section 25

of Republic Act No. 10142, which states that:

“ Section 25. Giving Due Course to or Dismissal of Petition, or

Conversion of Proceedings. - Within ten (10) days from receipt of
the report of the rehabilitation receiver mentioned in Section 24
hereof the court may:

xxxxxx(b) dismiss the petition upon a finding that:

(1)debtor is not insolvent;

(2) the petition is a sham filing intended only to delay the

enforcement of the rights of the creditor/s or of any group of
creditors;

(3) the petition, the Rehabilitation Plan and the attachments thereto
contain any materially false or misleading statements; or

(4)the debtor has committed acts of misrepresentation or in fraud of

its creditor/s or a group of creditorsxxx;”

PRAYER
 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, petitioner respectfully

prays that an Order be issued by this Honorable Court:

1. SETTING ASIDE the Commencement Order dated 10 May

2011 for lack of legal and factual basis ; and

2. DISMISSING AND/ OR DENYING DUE COURSE to the

present petition for failure to satisfy the substantive

requirements of Republic Act No. 10142.

Herein creditor prays for such further relief or remedy

which this Honorable Office may deem just and equitable

under the premises.

Mandaluyong City for Pasig City, _____________2011.

PLACIDO DEVEZA & CHAN LAW

OFFICES
Counsel for Good Provider Finance
and Leasing Corp.
Unit 701, Globe Telecom Plaza I,
Pioneer cor. Madison Streets,
Mandaluyong City
Tel. No. 747-86-22; Fax No. 747-86-
25
admin@pdclawoffices.com

VERIFICATION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

__________________ ) S. S.

I, , of legal age, Filipino, with postal address at

_______________________, after having been sworn in accordance with law,
do hereby depose and state as follows:
 1. I am the duly authorized representative of Good Provider Finance
and Leasing Corp., in the above-entitled case, as evidenced by the
attached Secretary’s Certificate (Annex “A”);
2. I attest that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing
Comment;
3. I have read and understood the contents of the same; and that
4. I further attest that the contents thereof are true and correct to the
best of my own personal knowledge and/or are based on authentic
documents.

AFFIANT SAYETH FURTHER NAUGHT.

MANIBEL IBANEZ
Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this _____ day of

_______________, at __________________, the affiant having exhibited to me
the following competent proof of his identity :

NAME PASSPORT ID. NO. DATE/PLACE OF

ISSUE

Notary Public

Doc. No. ____

Page No. ____
Book No. ___
Series of 2011.

Copy Furnished:
 EXPLANATION AS TO MODE OF SERVICE

Copies of this COMMENT were sent to the above-mentioned

parties, through their counsel, by way of registered mail due to time and

distance constraints.