G.R. No. 250440 - Ekistics Philippines, Inc. vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

Petitioner Ekistics Philippines, Inc. is a stockholder-of-record of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, a corporation engaged in savings, mortgage banking, and trust activities.
Respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is the central monetary authority exercising regulatory oversight over banks, pursuant to Republic Act No. 7653.
The dispute originated from the BSP’s actions regarding Banco Filipino:

On March 17, 2011, the BSP via its Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 372-A, placing Banco Filipino under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) due to its inability to continue business without inflicting probable losses on depositors and creditors.
Subsequent actions – including the issuance of Resolution No. 1635 on October 27, 2011 – placed the bank under liquidation after PDIC reported that rehabilitation was no longer possible.

Stockholders of Banco Filipino initiated petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the receivership and liquidation orders.

Two separate petitions were filed (docketed as CA-G.R. SP Nos. 118599 and 122130) by majority stockholders questioning the bank’s receivership and liquidation.

While these petitions were pending before the CA, petitioner Ekistics filed a petition-in-intervention entitled “In Re: Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank” before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sp. Proc. No. M-7411.

The RTC issued an Order on April 3, 2013, directing publication and requiring claimants to file claims against Banco Filipino within 30 days.
Stockholders subsequently moved to suspend the liquidation proceedings pending determination by the CA, which the RTC granted.

Amid the suspension, the BSP posted an Invitation to Bid for the sale of various Banco Filipino properties.

In response, Ekistics filed a Motion for Leave for Intervention with a Petition-in-Intervention along with an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against BSP.
Although BSP was not made a party in the motion, it was served notice and failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

A 20-day TRO on September 27, 2016, aimed at preventing the BSP from selling or disposing of the bank’s assets.
A WPI on October 17, 2016, enjoining BSP from selling Banco Filipino assets and reducing the bond amount via an order on October 25, 2016.

The PDIC elevated the matter via a petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 148237) challenging the RTC Orders.
BSP also intervened by filing its own petition for certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 148787) seeking the issuance of a TRO against the RTC’s orders.

Initially, on November 27, 2017, the CA annulled the RTC Orders and lifted the WPI on the basis that Ekistics, as a minority stockholder, did not sufficiently establish a clear and irreparable injury.
Following Ekistics’ motion for reconsideration, the CA reversed its ruling on July 27, 2018, reinstating the RTC orders.
BSP then moved for reconsideration, and on November 13, 2019, the CA rendered its Second Amended Decision, reinstating the original CA ruling that dismissed Ekistics’ petition-in-intervention on jurisdictional grounds and confirming the inability of courts to enjoin BSP’s actions under the relevant statutory scheme.

The CA erred in ruling that the RTC had no jurisdiction over its petition-in-intervention by invoking res judicata, as the issue had been previously decided affirmatively in CA-G.R. SP No. 148237.
The scope of BSP’s petition for certiorari was limited to nullifying the RTC Orders granting the WPI and reducing the injunctive bond, not dismissing Ekistics’ intervention.
The principle of judicial courtesy should apply to avoid mootness of issues pending in other CA divisions regarding the liquidation of Banco Filipino.

As BSP was not a litigant in the original liquidation case, any injunction issued by the RTC against it was unenforceable.
The properties in question were collaterals and not assets of Banco Filipino subject to liquidation proceedings.
The RTC lacked jurisdiction over an action in personam against BSP, and the requisites for the issuance of a WPI were plainly absent.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing Ekistics’ petition-in-intervention on the ground that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over it, particularly with reference to the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
Whether the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) by the Regional Trial Court against BSP was legally valid, given that BSP had not been properly impleaded and that the essential requisites for injunctive relief were lacking.
Whether the application of the principle of judicial courtesy was proper in this case to avoid the potential mootness of related issues pending before other divisions of the Court of Appeals.