G.R. No. 223404 - Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Bacalla, Jr.

On September 24, 2004, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, granted a petition for involuntary dissolution of Tibayan Group of Investment Companies, Inc. (TGICI) pursuant to Sections 121–122 of the Corporation Code. Atty. Marciano S. Bacalla, Jr. was appointed receiver and ordered to liquidate TGICI’s properties under Section 5, Rule 9 of the Interim Rules Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies (Interim Rules) under R.A. No. 8799.
The receiver, together with TGICI investors (Abacan, Lim, Madamba, Delgado) and Federation of Investors Tulungan, Inc. (FITI), filed Civil Case No. LP-05-0212 before RTC Branch 197, alleging fraudulent schemes by TGICI officers in violation of P.D. No. 902-A and the Interim Rules, and impleaded Prudential Bank (now BPI), JAMCOR Holdings, Cielo Azul Holdings, and others.

During pre-trial on September 20, 2010, petitioner BPI orally moved to declare respondents non-suited for lack of special powers of attorney; upon written motion, the RTC denied the motion on November 28, 2011, holding that (a) Atty. Bacalla was duly authorized by the dissolution decision and (b) FITI’s president was authorized by board resolution.
On February 8, 2012, BPI served Requests for Admission on respondents; the RTC denied these on August 10, 2012, invoking the doctrine of non-interference with prior Branch 253 orders. A motion for reconsideration of the Interim Rules’ applicability was likewise denied on January 14, 2013.

BPI filed CA-G.R. SP No. 127072 (petition for certiorari) challenging the November 28, 2011 and August 10, 2012 orders; the Court of Appeals (CA) partially granted relief by non-suing FITI. BPI’s subsequent Petition for Review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 217650) was denied on June 17, 2015.
BPI filed CA-G.R. SP No. 129574 contesting the RTC’s application of the Interim Rules; on July 27, 2015, the CA denied the petition, and on March 4, 2016 denied reconsideration.
BPI elevated the case to the Supreme Court via this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 223404).

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Interim Rules Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies apply despite the absence of an intra-corporate controversy as defined by law and jurisprudence.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that BPI’s petition for certiorari was filed out of time and violated the rule against splitting a cause of action under Rule 2, Sections 3 and 4 of the Rules of Court.