Nestle v. Uniwide Sales

NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC V. UNIWIDE SALES, INC FACTS: In 1999, the respondent Uniwide Sales Inc. fled in the Securities and

Exchange Commission Commission (SEC) a petition or declaration o suspension o pa!ment, ormation and appointment o reha"ilitation recei#er, and appro#al o reha"ilitation plan. $he petition was dul! appro#ed. appro#ed. $hereater, the newl! appointed Interim %ecei#ership Committee fled a reha"ilitation plan in the SEC which is anchored on return to core "usiness o retailing& de"t reduction #ia cash settlement and dacion en pago& loan restructuring& wai#er o penalties and charges& ree'ing o interest pa!ments& and restructuring o credit o suppliers, contractors, and pri#ate lenders. Su"seuent amendments o the said reha"ilitation plan were fled "eore the SEC and were all appro#ed. etitioners, as unsecured creditors o respondents, appealed to the SEC pra!ing that the appro#al o the reha"ilitation plan "e se set aside and a new one "e issued directing directing the Interim %ecei#ership %ecei#ership Committee, in consultation with all the unsecured creditors, to impro#e the terms and conditions o the plan. *cting on it, the SEC denied the appeal or lac+ o merit. ISSUE: hether or not the -octrine o rimar! urisdiction is applica"le in this case RULING: YES. /irst, the Court ta+es 0udicial notice o the act that rom the time o

the fling in this Court o the instant petition, super#ening super#ening e#ents ha#e unolded su"stantiall! su"stantiall! changing the actual "ac+drop o this reha"ilitation case. $he Court thus deers to the competence and expertise o the SEC to determine whether, gi#en the super#ening e#ents in this case, the amended reha"ilitation reha"ilitation plan is no longer capa"le o implementation and whether the reha"ilitation case should "e terminated as a conseuence. Under the doctrine o primar! administrati#e 0urisdiction, 0urisdiction, courts will not determine a contro#ers! where the issues or resolution demand the exercise o sound administrati#e discretion reuiring the special +nowledge, experience, and ser#ices o the administrati#e tri"unal to determine technical and intricate intricate matters o act. In other words, i a case is such that its determination reuires the expertise, speciali'ed training, training, and +nowledge o an administrati#e "od!, relie must frst "e o"tained in an administrati#e proceeding "eore resort to the court is had e#en i the matter ma! well "e within the latters proper 0urisdiction. 0urisdiction.  $he o"0ecti#e o the doctrine o primar! 0urisdiction is to guide the court in determining whether it should rerain rom exercising its 0urisdiction until ater an administrati#e administrati#e agenc! has determined some uestion or some aspect o some uestion arising in the proceeding "eore the court. etition dismissed.