Title
Supreme Court
Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. vs. Monetary Board
Case
G.R. No. 150886
Decision Date
Feb 16, 2007
RBSM, facing insolvency, was closed by the Monetary Board under RA 7653 without a full examination, upheld by courts as lawful and necessary to protect public interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 150886)

Petitioner

RBSM and Hilario P. Soriano, in his capacity as majority stockholder, challenged the Monetary Board’s Resolution No. 105 placing the bank under receivership and prohibiting it from doing business.

Respondent

The Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), designated as receiver under RA 7653.

Key Dates

– November 10, 1999 & December 31, 1999: BSP comptroller submitted financial condition reports.
– January 4, 2000: RBSM declared a bank holiday.
– January 21, 2000: Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 105.
– February 7–8, 2000: Petition for certiorari moved from RTC Malolos to Court of Appeals.
– March 28, 2000 & November 13, 2001: CA dismissed petition.
– June 9, 2000: MB adopted Resolution No. 966 directing PDIC to liquidate RBSM.
– February 16, 2007: Supreme Court decision.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process and police power)
– Republic Act No. 7653 (New Central Bank Act), Section 30 (receivership proceedings)
– Republic Act No. 265 (repealed), Section 29 (insolvency proceedings)
– Republic Act No. 8791 (General Banking Law, not yet in effect at the relevant time)

Factual and Procedural Background

BSP examiners’ reports as of October 31 and December 31, 1999, showed RBSM’s liabilities exceeded realizable assets, a growing deficit, insufficient cash on hand, and unaccounted funds siphoned to related entities. After RBSM unilaterally declared a bank holiday, the Monetary Board, acting on the Department of Rural Banks Supervision and Examination Sector report, issued Resolution No. 105 without prior hearing, placed RBSM under PDIC receivership, and later, through Resolution No. 966, ordered its liquidation.

Issue

Whether Section 30 of RA 7653 requires a current and complete examination by BSP examiners before a bank may be closed and placed under receivership, or whether a report by the head of the supervising or examining department suffices.

Legal Analysis

Under Section 30 of RA 7653, upon a report from the supervising or examining department head that a bank (a) cannot pay liabilities as they mature or (b) cannot continue without probable losses to depositors or creditors, the Monetary Board may summarily forbid the bank from doing business and designate PDIC as receiver. This summary authority, final and executory, is subject only to certiorari for grave abuse of discretion. The term “report” in Section 30 is unambiguous and differs from the “examination” required under the repealed RA 265, Section 29. The legislature consciously replaced “examination” with “report” to expedite bank closures in the public interest, eliminating prior notice and hearing to prevent runs and pani

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.