Case Digest (G.R. No. 196580)
Facts:
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and its Monetary Board v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 196580, June 10, 2020, First Division, Reyes, J. Jr., J., resolving a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of November 25, 2010 and Resolution of April 1, 2011.Respondent Banco Filipino originally filed three separate civil actions in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 136: Civil Case No. 8108 (filed August 6, 1984) seeking annulment of Monetary Board Resolution No. 955 placing Banco Filipino under conservatorship; Civil Case No. 9675 (filed February 2, 1985) seeking annulment of Monetary Board Resolution No. 75 ordering closure; and Civil Case No. 10183 (filed June 3, 1985) challenging a March 22, 1985 Monetary Board resolution ordering liquidation. Those matters were consolidated (following this Court’s resolution in G.R. No. 70054 dated August 29, 1985) and originally named the Monetary Board, the Central Bank, and several officials as defendants.
In 1995 Banco Filipino sought leave to file an Amended/Supplemental Complaint claiming substantial damages; the RTC admitted that pleading on December 7, 1995. In 2003 Banco Filipino moved to file a Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint (filed September 18, 2003) to implead petitioners BSP-MB as additional defendants; the RTC granted admission of that pleading on January 27, 2004 over the objection of the Central Bank Board of Liquidators (CB-BOL). The CB-BOL sought relief with the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 86697), and the CA (17th Division) in a January 27, 2006 Decision affirmed the RTC’s admission of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint and held BSP could be impleaded as successor-in-interest under R.A. No. 7653.
After BSP-MB entered special appearance and filed motions to dismiss (including motions asserting prescription, waiver, defective service and forum-shopping), the RTC on June 30, 2006 dismissed Banco Filipino’s Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint with prejudice as to BSP-MB (grounds: prescription, estoppel, and separate personalities of CB and BSP). The RTC denied reconsideration on September 20, 2006, and then disapproved Banco Filipino’s Notice of Appeal in an Order dated December 4, 2006 (citing Section 1(g), Rule 41, Rules of Court). That denial of approval was itself denied reconsideration by RTC on March 21, 2007.
Banco Filipino filed a petition for certiorari with the CA (Special 3rd Division) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in disapproving the Notice of Appeal. In a Decision dated November 25, 2010 (and denial of BSP-MB’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated April 1, 2011), the CA (Special 3rd Division) granted Banco Filipino’s petition, reversed the RTC’s December 4, 2006 and March 21, 2007 Orders, and held the RTC had gravely abused its discretion and improperly interfered with the CA (17th Division)’s ruling admitting the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
Petitioners BSP-MB sought relief from this Court by filing the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, contending (inter alia) that...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the RTC’s disapproval of Banco Filipino’s Notice of Appeal an abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction—i.e., was the Notice of Appeal the proper remedy from the dismissal as to BSP-MB?
- If appeal were proper, was a record on appeal required to perfect an appeal against the dismissal of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint?
- Did the Court of Appeals (Special 3rd Division) err in applying the doctrine of non-interference in reversing the RTC?
- Should the CA have dismissed Banco Filipino’s petition for certiorari because the verification and certification against forum-shopping were...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)