Case Digest (G.R. No. 222972)
Facts:
Hermosa Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., represented by its statutory liquidator, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), petitioner, vs. Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), respondent, G.R. No. 222972, February 10, 2021, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.DBP obtained funds from the Industrial Guarantee and Loan Fund (IGLF) and made subsidiary loans available to participating financial institutions. Hermosa Bank was accredited by DBP and executed subsidiary loan agreements; it thereafter borrowed IGLF funds and submitted corresponding loan documents and collaterals to DBP. DBP alleged that Hermosa Bank failed to remit amortizations and that the subsidiary loans were in default. A BSP regular examination later raised suspicions of tampering and falsification of loan and title documents in Hermosa Bank’s portfolio.
On September 25, 2001, DBP filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against Hermosa Bank and several bank officers (sued personally) in RTC Branch 136, Makati City (Civil Case No. 01-1438), and sought an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment, which the trial court issued on November 13, 2001. The writ was lifted in 2003 but later reinstated pursuant to an earlier Court of Appeals decision. DBP’s pleaded aggregate claim as of June 30, 2001 was approximately P438.2 million.
On February 5, 2005, the Monetary Board closed Hermosa Bank and designated PDIC as receiver. PDIC filed, on June 7, 2005, a petition for assistance in the liquidation of Hermosa Bank in Branch 5, RTC, Dinalupihan, Bataan (the Liquidation Court). The bank’s counsel withdrew and PDIC’s Office of the General Counsel appeared for the bank; the bank officers and Hermosa Bank moved to dismiss the RTC Branch 136 complaint on grounds that Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Liquidation Court.
RTC Branch 136 initially dismissed the DBP complaint in October 2008, reinstated it in March 2009, and then, in an Order dated April 30, 2010, again dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction in favor of the Liquidation Court. The case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 57 and, in an Order dated October 18, 2011, Branch 57 denied DBP’s motion for reconsideration and maintained dismissal, holding that Hermosa Bank’s assets were in custodia legis and that claims must be pursued in the Liquidation Court. DBP appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
In CA G.R. CV No. 98170 the CA, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. (Feb. 26, 2015), reversed and set aside the RTC orders, holding that the RTC retained jurisdiction because DBP’s case had been pending since 2001 (before receivership) and because the complaint included claims against ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether RTC Branch 136 and RTC Branch 57 retained jurisdiction over DBP's complaint despite the pendency of the petition for assistance in the liquidation of Hermosa Bank before the Liquidat...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)