Title
Go vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Case
G.R. No. 202262
Decision Date
Jul 8, 2015
OCBC's financial collapse led to PDIC receivership; Go challenged PDIC, entered a compromise with BSP, breached it, and lost properties in auction. SC upheld CA's dismissal, citing estoppel and mootness.
businessman
corporations
petition
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27249)

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Parties Involved
      • Petitioners:
        • Jose C. Go (businessman)
ii. Eight affiliated corporations, namely:
  • Gotesco Properties, Inc.
  • Go Tong Electrical Supply, Inc.
  • Ever Emporium, Inc.
  • Ever Gotesco Resources and Holdings, Inc.
  • Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc.
  • Evercrest Cebu Golf Club
  • Nasugbu Resorts, Inc.
  • GMCC United Development Corporation
  • Gulod Resort, Inc.
  • Respondents:
    • Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
ii. Register of Deeds of Nasugbu, Batangas
  • Procedural History and Initial Controversy
    • The genesis of the case is linked to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, et al.
    • Key events:
      • On February 13, 1998, OCBC declared a bank holiday due to financial incapacity.
ii. On March 17, 1998, OCBC filed for rehabilitation and was placed under receivership with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as Receiver. iii. Jose C. Go, as principal stockholder of OCBC, along with his affiliate companies, challenged the PDIC’s action before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 44. iv. During the pendency of this case, the Monetary Board passed Resolution No. 602 in May 1999 directing liquidation of OCBC.
  • Subsequent legal actions involved multiple RTC proceedings, including a complaint for a substantial monetary claim against OCBC.
  • The Compromise Agreement
    • Formation and Key Provisions
      • Entered into during the pendency of appeals to settle the deficiency claim and overdraft obligations.
ii. Total amount set at approximately PhP2,974,903.00, to be paid partly via the dacion (delivery) of certain real estate properties. iii. The agreement provided for:
  • Immediate down payment via dacion of properties listed in Annex “B.”
  • Execution of separate deeds of dacion.
  • Payment of all applicable taxes as allocated between the parties.
  • Amortization of the remaining balance over a period of ten (extendible to fifteen) years at an interest rate pegged to the 91-day T-Bill rate.
  • Additional Security Measures
    • Properties of defendant corporations Ever Crest Golf Club Resort, Inc. and Mega Heights, Inc. were agreed to be placed under a writ of attachment to secure the payment of the obligation.
ii. Corporate approvals and resolutions for execution of the compromise agreement had already been secured. iii. The agreement contained a clause that allowed the plaintiff (Bangko Sentral) to immediately move for a writ of execution against all assets of the attached properties in case of non-compliance.
  • Non-compliance and Execution Proceedings
    • Despite the approved compromise agreement by the RTC on December 29, 2003, Jose C. Go failed to comply with its terms.
    • Bangko Sentral moved for the execution of the compromise agreement subjecting the properties of Ever Crest and Mega Heights to levy.
    • Initial denial of execution by the RTC on December 12, 2008, followed by reversal upon a motion for reconsideration.
    • Writ of execution issued on July 6, 2009, leading to subsequent levies:
      • Notice of levy on real estate (dated July 6, 2009).
ii. Notice of sale of the levied property (dated July 15, 2009).
  • Despite a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) for 60 days in a separate petition for certiorari, the properties were eventually sold at public auction and transferred to Bangko Sentral.
  • Litigation and Appellate History
    • Petition for Certiorari
      • Petitioners sought relief by challenging:
        • The constitutional validity of levying the properties of Ever Crest and Mega Heights, arguing that they were not parties to the compromise agreement.
ii. Alleged grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the writ of execution.
  • The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari on December 20, 2011, holding it moot and academic.
  • Motions and Subsequent Rulings
    • Motion for reconsideration of the CA decision was filed on January 6, 2012, but later denied (resolution issued on June 14, 2012).

Issues:

  • Central Issue
    • Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari on the ground that it was moot and academic.
  • Sub-Issues
    • Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of execution against properties of Ever Crest and Mega Heights, which were arguably not original parties to the compromise agreement.
    • Whether the petitioners' arguments were barred by the estoppel effect arising from their own commitments and representations under the compromise agreement.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms