Case Digest (G.R. No. 192413)
Facts:
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation v. Hi‑Tri Development Corporation and Luz R. Bakunawa, G.R. No. 192413, June 13, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Sereno, J., writing for the Court.The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Complaint for Escheat (Civil Case No. 06‑244) on December 14, 2006 against unclaimed balances held by various banks pursuant to Act No. 3936, as amended by P.D. 679. The Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 150, rendered a Decision dated May 19, 2008 declaring certain deposits escheated to the Republic and ordering their deposit with the Treasurer of the Philippines; among the amounts so ordered forfeited was P1,019,514.29 held by Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) at its Ermita Business Center branch as funds allocated for a managers check (No. ER034469) issued in favor of Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil).
The underlying factual chain began with the Spouses Luz R. Bakunawa and Manuel Bakunawa (through their company Hi‑Tri Development Corporation) offering to sell sequestered lots to Teresita Millan, who made a downpayment of P1,019,514.29. The Spouses, dissatisfied with the purchaser’s performance, rescinded the sale and retained a managers check issued by RCBC in the amount of P1,019,514.29 as part of Civil Case No. Q‑91‑10719 filed in 1991 against Millan and her representative. Millan refused to accept the return of the downpayment; the Spouses/Hi‑Tri retained custody of the managers check instead of canceling or negotiating it.
RCBC filed its sworn statement of dormant accounts with the Treasury as of January 31, 2003 reporting the P1,019,514.29 as unclaimed; the Bureau of the Treasury was informed and the OSG later initiated the escheat action. During pendency of the separate case between the Spouses and Rosmil, the Spouses inquired of RCBC about the availability of the funds and were informed they were subject to the escheat proceedings. Respondents moved for partial reconsideration (and to intervene) after the RTC Decision; the RTC denied the motion by order of November 3, 2008, finding publication and notice requirements satisfied and that the motion was either inadequate under Rule 37 or untimely.
The Court of Appeals (in CA‑G.R. SP No. 107261) reversed on November 26, 2009, holding that RCBC failed to give immediate pre‑filing notice to the payee/procurer and that the RTC clerk failed to issue individual notices by pe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the RTC Decision and Order void for failure to send separate notices to respondents by personal service?
- Did RCBC have an obligation to notify respondents immediately before filing its sworn statement with the Treasurer?
- May the funds allocated for the payment of the managers check be escheated i...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)