FACTS:

This is a petition for review filed by Nestle Philippines, Inc. and Nestle Waters Philippines, Inc., formerly Hidden Springs & Perrier Inc. The respondents in this case are Uniwide Sales, Inc., Uniwide Holdings, Inc., Naic Resources and Development Corporation, Uniwide Sales Realty and Resources Club, Inc., First Paragon Corporation, and Uniwide Sales Warehouse Club, Inc.

Respondents filed a petition with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 25 June 1999 seeking declaration of suspension of payment, formation and appointment of rehabilitation receiver, and approval of rehabilitation plan. The SEC approved the petition on 29 June 1999.

On 18 October 1999, the Interim Receivership Committee filed a rehabilitation plan, which was anchored on returning to the core business of retailing and included debt reduction, loan restructuring, and restructuring of credit of suppliers, contractors, and private lenders.

An Amended Rehabilitation Plan (ARP) was then filed on 14 February 2000 to take into account the planned entry of Casino Guichard Perrachon to inject fresh capital. The SEC approved the ARP on 11 April 2001.

However, on 11 October 2001, the Interim Receivership Committee filed a Second Amendment to the Rehabilitation Plan (SARP) after Casino Guichard Perrachon withdrew. The SEC approved the SARP in its Order dated 23 December 2002.

Petitioners, as unsecured creditors, appealed to the SEC to set aside the 23 December 2002 Order and issue a new one directing the Interim Receivership Committee to improve the terms and conditions of the SARP.

The SEC denied petitioners' appeal in its 13 January 2004 Order. Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its 10 January 2006 Decision, denied the petition for lack of merit. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, and in the 13 September 2006 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration and referred the supplemental motion for reconsideration to the SEC. Dissatisfied, petitioners filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The issue raised by petitioners is whether the SARP should be revoked and the rehabilitation proceedings terminated.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Second Amendment to the Rehabilitation Plan (SARP) should be revoked and the rehabilitation proceedings terminated.

RULING:

1. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for review filed by the petitioners, stating that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made therein must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals also emphasized that it is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of the witnesses, or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency. Thus, the petition for review was denied for lack of merit.

PRINCIPLES:

• The findings of fact made by an administrative agency must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.

• The reviewing court should not weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency.

• An administrative decision can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud, or error of law.