Case Digest (G.R. No. L-30511)
Facts:
Manuel M. Serrano v. Central Bank of the Philippines; Overseas Bank of Manila; Emerito M. Ramos, et al., G.R. No. L-30511, February 14, 1980, Supreme Court Second Division, Concepcion, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Manuel M. Serrano filed an original action in the Supreme Court for mandamus and prohibition, with a preliminary injunction, seeking joint and solidary liability of the Central Bank of the Philippines and the Overseas Bank of Manila (and its stockholders) for P350,000 plus interest representing time deposits allegedly unpaid by the Overseas Bank. He further sought an order converting into a trust fund certain properties listed in an annex to the Central Bank’s answer in a related case (G.R. No. L-29352), and a permanent prohibition against respondents from giving effect to deeds of mortgage, assignment or conveyance over those properties.
On October 13 and December 12, 1966, petitioner made a time deposit of P150,000 (1-year at 6%). Concepcion Maneja made a time deposit of P200,000 on March 6, 1967 (1-year at 6½%), which she assigned to petitioner on August 31, 1968. Despite repeated demands for payment between December 6, 1967 and March 4, 1968, none of these time deposit certificates were honored by the Overseas Bank of Manila.
The Central Bank admitted it supervises the banking system but denied any duty to exercise an omnipresent, “most rigid and stringent” supervision or to act as guarantor of a bank’s permanent solvency. It noted that, by Monetary Board Resolution No. 322 dated March 12, 1965, the Overseas Bank had been restricted to limited operations (prohibited from making new loans and investments) because of chronic reserve deficiencies, and that there were no findings declaring the bank insolvent in 1966–1967. The Central Bank denied that the properties later given as additional collateral by Overseas Bank to the Central Bank had been acquired with depositors’ funds or that a constructive trust arose in favor of depositors.
In an earlier related matter, G.R. No. L-29352 (Emerito M. Ramos, et al. v. Central Bank of the Philippines), the Overseas Bank sought to prevent the Central Bank from closing, declaring insolvent, and liquidating it. Petitioner Serrano moved to intervene in that case on September 6, 1968; the Supreme Court denied the motion to intervene on October 4, 1968. The Court later rendered judgment in G.R. No. L-29352 on October 4, 1971 (final and executory March 3, 1972) granting the reliefs sought by the Overseas Bank and annulling certain Central Bank resolutions that had prohibited participation in clearing, suspended operations, and ordered liquidation; the Central Bank was directed to comply with the Voting Trust Agreement.
Following that decision, Serrano moved for judgment in the present original action seeking (a) a judgment a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is an original action for mandamus and prohibition in the Supreme Court the proper remedy for petitioner’s claims for recovery of unpaid time deposits and for declaration of a constructive trust against assets held by the Central Bank?
- Can the Central Bank be held jointly and severally liable with the Overseas Bank, or can a constructive trust be declared over assets mortgaged to the Central Bank, on the grounds that the Central Bank failed to strictly supervise the Overseas Bank or that the mortgaged assets were acquired with depositors’ funds?
- Are time deposits the subject of a depositary trust or are they...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)