Title
Philippine Veterans Bank vs. Bank of Commerce
Case
G.R. No. 217938
Decision Date
Sep 15, 2021
CAP's trust fund redemption led to Rehabilitation Court orders, BOC contested via BSP, but Supreme Court upheld final judgment, prioritizing immutability and fairness.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217938)

Case History

In 1991, CAP entered into a trust agreement with BOC concerning preferred shares. Following CAP's petition for rehabilitation in 2005, BOC redeemed these preferred shares in 2008, which led to legal disputes regarding the payment of dividends. The Rehabilitation Court had ordered BOC to remit dividends to PVB, as CAP’s new trustee. However, BOC contended that payment required approval from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

Legal Proceedings and Initial Rulings

The Rehabilitation Court issued orders in April and September 2008 directing BOC to pay accrued dividends, which BOC contested later, asserting that BSP approval was necessary for dividend declarations. However, upon request for BSP guidance, the court was informed in 2008 that only a report on the intended dividend declaration was required for compliance, not explicit approval.

BSP Denial and Its Implications

On November 14, 2011, the BSP denied BOC's request to pay dividends, citing BOC’s negative surplus and violations of banking regulations, arguing that these circumstances constituted a supervening event that justified setting aside prior orders. This denial was contested by PVB and CAP, asserting that previous orders had already become final and executory, and thus immutable.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals sided with BOC, affirming that the BSP’s denial of dividend payments constituted a supervening event altering the execution of the earlier orders. It declared that continuing to execute these orders would risk imposing unjust consequences on BOC, potentially harming its creditors.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision. It upheld the principle of immutability of final judgments, asserting that the BSP's denial did not fulfill the requirements to be classified as a supervening event that could alter a judgment that had been finalized. The Court clarified that BOC had previously admitted to having the means to cover dividend payments, thereby undermining its claim abou

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.