Title
Koruga vs. Arcenas, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 168332
Decision Date
Jun 19, 2009
A minority stockholder alleged unsafe banking practices and sought corporate inspection, but the Supreme Court ruled BSP has exclusive jurisdiction over bank-related disputes, dismissing the case.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 168332)

Facts:

  • Parties and Origins
    • Ana Maria A. Koruga, minority stockholder of Banco Filipino, filed a complaint (Aug. 20, 2003) before Makati RTC, Branch 138, alleging violations of the Corporation Code, refusal to inspect records, receivership, and creation of management committee.
    • Defendants: Banco Filipino Board members (Arcenas, Aguirre, Paguio, Rivera) and BSP Monetary Board members.
  • RTC Proceedings
    • Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, improper service, forum-shopping, and nuisance; motion denied Oct. 18, 2004; reconsideration denied Jan. 18, 2005.
    • Koruga’s complaint detailed alleged unsafe banking practices, self-dealing, fraudulent loans to “dummy” corporations (approx. ₱1.6 billion), dacion en pago transactions, and refusal to allow inspection under Corp. Code §§ 74–75.
  • CA Proceedings
    • Arcenas et al. petitioned CA for certiorari under Rule 65, secured TRO (Feb. 9, 2005), and preliminary injunction (Apr. 18, 2005) enjoining RTC proceedings.
    • CA’s July 20, 2005 decision dissolved injunction, found no grave abuse of discretion by RTC, and remanded case for resolution of intra-corporate controversies and service issues.
  • SC Proceedings
    • Koruga filed certiorari (G.R. 168332) to nullify CA’s April 18, 2005 injunctive relief; CA’s July 20 decision raised mootness issues.
    • Arcenas et al. filed review under Rule 45 (G.R. 169053) to overturn CA’s July 20, 2005 decision.
    • SC issued TRO (Mar. 13, 2006), denied motion to lift TRO (July 5, 2006), and consolidated both petitions (Sept. 26, 2005).

Issues:

  • Mootness and Procedural Defects
    • Whether G.R. 168332 petition is moot and academic due to CA’s July 20, 2005 decision dissolving preliminary injunction.
    • Whether Koruga’s verification and certification against forum-shopping were defective.
  • Jurisdiction and Applicable Law
    • Whether RTC or BSP Monetary Board has exclusive jurisdiction over receivership and banking practice disputes involving Banco Filipino.
    • Whether the Corporation Code or the New Central Bank Act and General Banking Law govern allegations of unsafe, unsound, and self-dealing banking practices.
    • Whether Koruga, as a minority stockholder, has standing to challenge BSP actions requiring majority stockholder petition under NCB Act § 30.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

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.