A.M. No. 00-06-09-SC - Re: Habitual Tardiness Committed During the 1st Semester of 2004

On July 25, 1968, the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) filed a complaint for escheat in the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 73707.
The complaint targeted several banks, including Republic Bank (respondent), along with its provincial branches, covering about 55,000 depositors or creditors in total.
The petitioner alleged that pursuant to Section 2 of Act No. 3936, the banks forwarded sworn statements enumerating dormant deposits and credits, which had not been claimed for ten years or more.
The relevant statutory scheme required publication of these sworn statements in at least two newspapers (one in English and one in Spanish) to notify interested parties.

On August 8, 1968, the respondent Court of First Instance issued the summons and notice addressed to the banks and other persons with an interest in the dormant deposits.
The summons and notice included Annex A—a list of depositors or creditors—and directed all parties to file a reply within sixty (60) days from the first publication.
The notice was also published in the “Philippines Herald” and “El Debate” in the issues of August 25, September 1, and September 8, 1968, as required by the statute.

Despite being served with the summons, many respondents, including the depositors or creditors of Republic Bank’s provincial branches, failed to file their answers within the prescribed period.
On November 26, 1968, the respondent Court declared these defendant banks and their respective depositors or creditors in default for not having answered the complaint.
On December 10, 1968, Republic Bank filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for its provincial branches on the ground of improper venue—arguing the branches’ locations were the proper venues rather than Manila.
The petitioner opposed the motion, contending that Republic Bank was merely a nominal party; that the real parties in interest are the depositors or creditors; and that under Act No. 3936, the single action in Manila was proper regardless of branch location.

On March 3, 1969, the Court of First Instance granted Republic Bank’s motion, dismissing the complaint as to its provincial branches.
On April 8, 1969, the petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the dismissal order.
On June 27, 1969, the respondent court modified its earlier order by retaining the complaint against the Manila operations while dismissing it concerning the provincial branches.

The statutory basis for the proceedings is Act No. 3936, which governs the escheat of dormant deposits, and the complementary provisions of the Revised Rules of Court (Sections 2(b) and 5 of Rule 4, and Rule 18 on default).
The publications, summons, and default orders form part of the procedural framework which influenced later arguments on proper venue and real party in interest.

Whether Republic Bank, by moving to dismiss the complaint on grounds of improper venue, acted as the real party in interest, given that the depositors or creditors are the true stakeholders in the dormant deposits.

Whether the venue, as laid in the City of Manila pursuant to Act No. 3936 and supplemented by Section 2(b) of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, was proper even though the provincial branches’ depositors or creditors were affected.

Whether the objection to venue raised by Republic Bank is valid considering that its provincial branch depositors or creditors had been declared in default for failing to file their answers.
Whether a motion to dismiss for improper venue may be entertained after default declarations have been entered against the affected parties.

Whether Republic Bank’s failure to assert the venue issue within the proper time frame—especially after proceeding to trial—amounts to a waiver of the objection to improper venue.