The Supreme Court has denied the petition filed by Bayan Telecommunications Inc. to reverse a Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its opposition to the rehabilitation plan of Express Telecommunications Company (Extelcom), removing the last obstacle to Extelcom’s operation as a financially sound company.

In its resolution, the Second Division of the High Court said it decided to deny the petition “there being no reversible error when the Court of Appeals stated that (a) the petition for certiorari was a mere substitute for a lost appeal, and (b)the Regional Trial Court did not commit acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that would warrant a nullification of its orders…”

In the same resolution, the SC’s Second Division also denied the motion of Bayantel and Marifil Holdings Corporation (a subsidiary of Bayantel) to refer the case to the Court En Banc for lack of merit.

Bayantel, through Marifil, used to be the biggest shareholder of Extelcom with a 42 percent stake. But its interest had been reduced after a debt to equity conversion was implemented under a court-approved rehabilitation plan.

Bayantel’s claim that Extelcom’s rehabilitation plan is not valid because it had not been approved by two thirds of shareholders has been junked by the courts as this is not applicable since the approval is needed only in a debtor-initiated corporate rehabilitation while Extelcom’s rehabilitation was creditor-initiated.

Trans Digital Excel Inc., former Extelcom creditor and now its majority shareholder, said that to require shareholder approval would have, in effect, given shareholders veto power over the rehabilitation plan when it is unable or unwilling to pay its debts.

While Bayantel is now disputing the shareholder advances by Millicom Cellular (later acquired by TDE), TDE said minutes of various Extelcom shareholder and board meetings show that Bayantel proxies and board representatives had actively participated in passing resolutions approving the said advances.

TDE also reiterated that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the rehabilitation court and the rehabilitation receiver had not violated his fiduciary duties since the rehabilitation plan was not secured through fraud.