Case Summary (G.R. No. 200678)
Key Dates
• December 11, 1991 – SC’s Banco Filipino decision invalidating BSP’s closure order
• June 14, 1993 – Republic Act No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act) establishes BSP
• March 17, 2011 – BSP designates PDIC as receiver of Banco Filipino
• April 10, 2012 – Banco Filipino files Petition for Review on Certiorari before SC
• June 4, 2018 – SC promulgates decision under 1987 Constitution
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 20 (central monetary authority)
• Republic Act No. 7653 (1993) – powers and duties of BSP and PDIC receiver
• PDIC Charter (RA 3591, as amended by RA 9302) – PDIC’s authority as receiver
• Rules of Court, Rules 3, 7, 59 and Rule 65 on certiorari
Procedural History
Banco Filipino sought judicial confirmation of its business plan and financing from BSP. After protracted negotiations and BSP’s Resolution No. 1668 (December 4, 2009) conditioning relief on withdrawal of suits, Banco Filipino filed Certiorari and Mandamus in the Makati RTC (Branch 66), Civil Case No. 10-1042. BSP moved to dismiss for lack of RTC jurisdiction and absence of PDIC authority. The RTC granted a temporary restraining order. BSP and the Monetary Board elevated the matter by certiorari to the CA, which permanently enjoined the RTC and dismissed Civil Case No. 10-1042 for lack of jurisdiction. Banco Filipino’s motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this Petition for Review.
Issue 1 – Capacity to Sue under Receivership
Whether Banco Filipino, placed under PDIC receivership on March 17, 2011, had capacity to file this Petition without joining its statutory receiver.
SC’s Analysis on Capacity
Under RA 7653 and the PDIC Charter, once a bank is closed and placed under PDIC receivership, only PDIC may institute or defend actions in the bank’s name. The receiver holds all assets in custodia legis and has exclusive authority to litigate, as reinforced by Rule 59, Sec. 6, and the fiduciary doctrine in Balayan Bay Rural Bank v. NLDC. PDO’s verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by Banco Filipino’s suspended officers were void. Banco Filipino’s failure to obtain PDIC’s consent or join it as co-petitioner rendered the Petition unsigned and stripped the SC of jurisdiction.
Issue 2 – Jurisdiction over Quasi-Judicial Agency
Whether the RTC could entertain a certiorari petition against BSP’s Monetary Board.
SC’s Analysis on Jurisdiction
Rule 65, Sec. 4(d) of the Rules of Court mandates that special civil actions against quasi-judicial agencies—such as the BSP Monetary Board—be filed exclusively with and are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. Jurisprudence (United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, National Water Resources Board v. A.L. Ang Network) confirms this. The RTC’s assumption of jurisdiction in Civil Case No. 10-1042 was therefore void.
Issue 3 – Procedural Requisites for Certiorari
Whether BSP and the Monetary Board needed to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 200678)
Facts and Background
- In December 1991, the Supreme Court voided the Monetary Board’s closure and receivership order against Banco Filipino and directed its reorganization under the Central Bank and Monetary Board.
- Republic Act No. 7653 (1993) established Bangko Sentral as the new monetary authority; in November 1993, Monetary Board Resolution No. 427 allowed Banco Filipino to resume business.
- In 2002, Banco Filipino faced heavy withdrawals and, by letter dated October 9, 2003, sought over ₱3 billion in emergency loans and credit easement from Bangko Sentral.
- Bangko Sentral required compliance with RA 7653 conditions and submission of an approved rehabilitation plan before extending assistance; Banco Filipino submitted its Long-Term Business Plan on April 14, 2004.
- On July 8, 2004, Banco Filipino filed a Petition for Revival of Judgment (Civil Case No. 04-823, RTC Makati Branch 62) to compel Bangko Sentral’s approval of its plan; negotiations ensued, producing seven revisions.
- April 8, 2009: Banco Filipino’s 8th Revised Business Plan requested a ₱25 billion income enhancement loan; parties formed an Ad Hoc Committee and crafted an Alternative Business Plan, subject to Monetary Board approval.
- December 4, 2009: Monetary Board Resolution No. 1668 granted the ₱25 billion assistance and regulatory reliefs but conditioned approval on withdrawal with prejudice of all pending suits and execution of quitclaims by Banco Filipino’s principals.
- Banco Filipino protested the withdrawal condition as a separate matter; after exchanges of letters through mid-2010, no settlement was reached.
Procedural History
- October 20, 2010: Banco Filipino filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with prayer for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction in RTC Makati Branch 66 (Civil Case No. 10-1042), assailing Bangko Sentral’s alleged coercion to withdraw claims.
- October 27, 2010: Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; October 28, 2010: RTC granted the TRO and set hearings for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Summons was served on respondents the same day.
- November 5, 2010: Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 116627) assailing the RTC’s jurisdiction; November 17, 2010: RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, holding due process satisfied.
- November 25, 2010: Respondents filed a second CA petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 116905) challenging the November 17 Order; February 14, 2011: CA issued a resolution granting a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the RTC from further proceedings in Civil Case No. 10-1042.
- June 2, 2011: CA denied Banco Filipino’s motion for consolidation and reconsideration in CA-G.R. SP No. 116905; July 28, 2011: CA rendered a Decision dismissing Civil Case No. 10-1042 for lack of jurisdiction and permanently enjoining the RTC.
- February 16, 2012: CA denied Banco Filipino’s motion for reconsideration; April 10, 2012: Banco Filipino filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Banco Filipino asserts it had legal capacity to file the Petition without PDIC’s joinder, citing an earlier CA decision (dated January 27, 2012) that found its closure illegal.
- It argues that requiring PDIC’s authority would create a conflict of interest, as PDIC is controlled by the Monetary Board.
- Banco Filipino claims the RTC had jurisdiction under Merchants Rural Bank of Talavera v. Monetary Board and by virtue of respondents’ voluntary appearance in the su