Facts:

The case involves petitioners Romeo P. Busuego, Catalino F. Banez, and Renato F. Lim against the respondents, the Honorable Court of Appeals and the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines. The events leading to this case began with the 16th regular examination of the books and records of the PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA), conducted from March 14 to April 16, 1988, by a team of Central Bank examiners led by Belinda Rodriguez. This examination revealed several irregularities, including questionable investments in a multi-million peso real estate project (Pesalaville), conflicts of interest, unwarranted dividend declarations, and unsound business practices.

On July 19, 1988, the Central Bank's Supervision and Examination Section (SES) Director Ricardo F. Lirio invited PESALA's Board of Directors to a conference on July 21, 1988, to discuss the findings of the examination. However, the petitioners did not attend. Subsequently,...

Facts:

Background of the Case
The case involves Romeo P. Busuego, Catalino F. Banez, and Renato F. Lim, petitioners, who were directors and officers of the PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA). The Central Bank (CB) conducted its 16th regular examination of PESALA’s books and records from March 14 to April 16, 1988, uncovering several anomalies and irregularities committed by the petitioners, including:

1. Questionable investment in a multi-million peso real estate project (Pesalaville).
2. Conflict of interest in business conduct.
3. Unwarranted declaration and payment of dividends.
4. Commission of unsound and unsafe business practices.

Invitation to Conference and Petitioners' Response
On July 19, 1988, Ricardo F. Lirio, Director of the CB’s Supervision and Examination Section (SES) Department IV, invited the petitioners to a conference on July 21, 1988, to discuss the findings. However, the petitioners did not attend. Instead, Renato Lim sent a letter on July 28, 1988, explaining his side, which was forwarded to the CB. PESALA’s Board of Directors also sent a letter to the CB on July 29, 1988, addressing the examination findings.

Monetary Board Resolution No. 805
On September 9, 1988, the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 805, which, among other things:

1. Required PESALA’s Board of Directors to inform its members of the examination results.
2. Included the petitioners’ names in the CB’s watchlist to prevent them from holding responsible positions in any institution under CB supervision.
3. Required PESALA to enforce the collection of overpayments and account for unremitted loan proceeds and unsupported cash disbursements.
4. Directed PESALA to file civil and criminal cases against the petitioners for misfeasance and malfeasance.

Legal Proceedings
On January 23, 1989, petitioners filed a Petition for Injunction with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, which granted the TRO and later issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC declared Monetary Board Resolution No. 805 void and issued a permanent injunction. The CB appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the RTC’s decision and dismissed the petition for injunction.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Actual hearing is not always necessary, as long as the parties are given a fair chance to present their side.
2. Authority of the Monetary Board: Under Republic Act No. 3779 (Savings and Loan Association Act), the Monetary Board is empowered to supervise and examine savings and loan associations, impose sanctions, and take preventive measures to address irregularities.
3. Preventive Nature of Sanctions: The inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the watchlist was preventive and did not permanently deprive them of their lawful calling. They could still seek employment outside institutions under CB supervision.
4. Validity of Monetary Board Resolution No. 805: The resolution was based on substantial evidence gathered during the examination and was issued to prevent further irregularities and prosecute those responsible.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Central Bank, through the Monetary Board, has the duty to enforce laws and regulations to maintain the stability of the financial system. The petitioners’ suspension and inclusion in the watchlist were justified under the circumstances.