G.R. No. 170287 - Alabang Country Club, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission

United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) and its officers (Kilayko, Tan, Gana, Jacinto, Lazaro) filed G.R. No. 168859 under Rule 45 seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ October 14, 2004 Decision and July 7, 2005 Resolution setting aside the BSP Monetary Board’s September 16, 2003 letter-decision and remanding for further proceedings.
E. Ganzen, Inc. (EGI) filed G.R. No. 168897 under Rule 45 to compel the Court of Appeals to act on its findings, to direct the BSP Monetary Board to impose sanctions on UCPB, and to delete certain remand statements.

From 1995–1998, EGI financed expansion through credit facilities from UCPB secured by condominium inventories at EGI Rufino Plaza, Manila.
EGI defaulted in mid-1998; UCPB declared default (Oct 2, 1998; Feb 16, 1999) and ceased monthly statements.

MOA (Dec 28, 1998) fixed outstanding obligations at ₱915,838,822.50, amended (Jan 18, 2000) to ₱904,491,052.00; modes: foreclosure, dacion en pago, holding company, others.
Foreclosure sale (Apr 13, 2000) fetched ₱723,592,000.00; applied to principal under BSP Circular No. 239; unpaid balance ₱192,246,822.50.
Dacion en pago (May 8, 2001) transferred properties valued ₱166,127,369.50; EGI discovered loan balance had risen to ₱226,963,905.50 due to added transaction costs ₱34,717,083.00.

EGI procured UCPB Internal Memorandum (Feb 22, 2001) showing “ACTUAL” balance ₱146,849,412.58 vs. “DISCLOSED TO EGI” ₱226,967,194.80.
EGI demanded refund of overpayment (~₱83 million) and return of titles; UCPB justified discrepancy under BSP accounting rules (Circular No. 202 disallowing accrual of NPL interest).
EGI filed an administrative complaint (Nov 5, 2002) with the BSP Monetary Board for violations of RA 7653 §§ 36–37, RA 8791 § 55.1(a), and for committing irregular and unsafe or unsound banking practices.

BSP letter-decision (Sept 16, 2003) dismissed the complaint based on findings: proper interest computation, no requirement that bid price equal market value, existence of loan documents, and no finding on transaction-cost padding.
EGI motions for reconsideration denied (Dec 8, 2003).
Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 81385) granted EGI’s Rule 43 petition (Oct 14, 2004), set aside BSP decision as summary, and remanded; CA denied all motions for reconsideration (July 7, 2005).

UCPB (G.R. No. 168859) challenges CA jurisdiction, alleges CA erred in finding summary dismissal and in questioning BSP factual findings.
EGI (G.R. No. 168897) confirms CA jurisdiction and summary-dismissal finding but contests remand, urging direct imposition of sanctions.

Does the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over final judgments, orders, or resolutions of the BSP Monetary Board on administrative complaints?

Did the BSP Monetary Board summarily dismiss EGI’s administrative complaint without sufficient basis or explanation?
Did the Court of Appeals err in disregarding the BSP’s factual findings and in implying UCPB committed irregular and unsound banking practices?

Did the Court of Appeals err by remanding the case to the BSP Monetary Board instead of acting on its own findings?
Should the CA have directed the BSP Monetary Board to impose administrative sanctions on UCPB and its officers?