Sei sulla pagina 1di 3

30. CB- BOL vs.

Banco Filipino (edited Lisa’s digest lang sa facts) GR: Rule 10 of the 1997 ROC allows the parties to supplement their pleadings by
Amendments and Supplemental Pleadings setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the
pleading sought to be supplemented.
ER:
This case involves 3 MB Resolutions issued by the CB. (1) placed respondent under LIMITATION: the matter stated in the supplemental complaint must have a
conservatorship; (2) ordered the closure of respondent and placed it under relation to the cause of action set forth in the original pleading.
receivership; and (3) placed it under liquidation. For each Resolution, respondent filed  matter must be germane and intertwined with the cause of action stated
a complaint alleging its impropriety. Later the SC ordered the consolidation of these in the original complaint so that the principal and core issues raised by
3 cases. the parties in their original pleadings remain the same

During the pendency of the 3 consolidated cases, New Central Bank Act took effect @: Banco Filipino attempted to raise new and different causes of action that arose
creating the CB-BOL for the purpose of administering and liquidating the CB’s assets only in 1994. These causes of action had no relation whatsoever to the causes of action
and liabilities. In 1994, respondent was allowed to resume its business. Respondent in the original Complaint, as they involved different acts or omissions, transactions,
filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended/Supplemental Complaint in the 3 and parties.
consolidated cases seeking to substitute the CB-BOL for the defunct CB and its MB, IN SHORT, EITHERWAY, whether viewed as an amendment or a supplement to the
and sought to recover P18 Billion as actual damages against petitioner (granted). More original Complaint, the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint should not have
than 10 years later, Banco Filipino again filed a Motion to Admit Second been admitted.
Amended/Supplemental Complaint (ITO LANG YUNG ISSUE!!!!) seeking to
include the BSP and its MB as additional defendants and assailing several harassing
acts commited by BSP (check facts). Facts:
 (Feb 14, 1963) the MB of the then CB issued MB Resolution No. 223
Petitioner opposed  gorund: the admission of the second supplemental complaint allowing respondent Banco Filipino to operate as a savings bank.
would expand the scope of the dispute in the consolidated civil cases to include new  Respondent began formal operations on July 9, 1964.
causes of action against new parties, like BSP.  On July 27, 1984, the CB issued MB Resolution No. 955 placing Banco
Filipino under conservatorship after granting the latter’s loan applications
SC: (SORRY LAHAT DITO IMPT AF!) worth billions of pesos.
1. On the 2nd amendment of pleading = improper  Respondent filed with the RTC (Makati) a Complaint against the CB for
GR: Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to amend their the annulment of MB Resolution no. 955. (Complaint 1 = annulment of
pleadings – the conservatorship order)
(a) by adding or striking out an allegation or a party’s name; or  (January 25, 1985) the CB issued MB Resolution No. 75 ordering the
(b) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken closure of Banco Filipino and placing the latter under receivership.
or an inadequate allegation or description in the pleadings for the purpose o Since respondent had been found to be insolvent, the latter was
of determining the actual merits of the controversy in the most inexpensive forbidden to continue doing business to prevent further losses to
and expeditious manner. its depositors and creditors.
EX: If the purpose is to set up a CoA not existing at the time of the filing of the o Provided for the takeover of the assets and liabilities of Banco
complaint  amendment is NOT allowed. Filipino for the benefit of its depositors and creditors, as well as
for the termination of its conservatorship.
@: The acts complained of cover not just the conservatorship, receivership, closure,  (February 2, 1985) Banco Filipino filed a Complaint with the RTC Makati
and liquidation of Banco Filipino in 1984 and 1985, but also the alleged acts of
against the MB, assailing the latter’s act of placing the bank under
harassment committed by the BSP and its MB after respondent bank was reopened in
receivership.  eventually reached SC (Complaint 2 = case seeking to
1994. In effect, respondent raised new causes of action and asserted a new relief in
annul the receivership order)
the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
 (February 28, 1985) Because of its impending closure, Banco Filipino filed
with the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus, seeking the annulment
2. On second supplemental pleading = improper.
of MB Resolution No. 75 on the ground of grave abuse of discretion in the 34
 Banco Filipino claimed that the BSP employed “coercive measures”
issuance of the Resolution.
that forced respondent to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
 (March 22, 1985) the CB issued another Resolution placing Banco Filipino regarding the collection of advances extended to the latter by the defunct
under liquidation. CB. In addition, respondent also alleged that its present dealings with the
 Respondent filed another complaint with the RTC to question the BSP and the MB have become increasingly difficult, especially in
propriety of the liquidation. (Complaint 3 = case seeking to annul the obtaining favorable actions on its requests and other official dealings
order for the liquidation of the bank) 
 SC: promulgated a resolution directing the consolidation of the 3  5. The demands of Banco Filipino for an out-of-court settlement of its
complaints. damage claims against the BSP have gone unheeded and have resulted in
 During the pendency of the 3 consolidated cases, R.A. No. 7653 (New burgeoning litigation expenses and other damages, for which respondent
Central Bank Act of 1993) took effect.
o Created the CB-BOL for the purpose of administering and continues to suffer as a result of prolonged litigation.33
liquidating the CB’s assets and liabilities. 
 BSP reopened Banco Filipino and allowed it to resume business on July  CB-BOL opposed:
1994  pursuant to SC Decision. o The second supplemental complaint raised new and independent
 Banco Filipino filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended/ causes of action against a new party — the BSP — which was not
Supplemental Complaint in the three consolidated cases with the RTC. an original party.
o Respondent bank sought to substitute the CB-BOL for the o The admission of the second supplemental complaint would
defunct CB and its MB, and sought to recover P18 Billion as expand the scope of the dispute in the consolidated civil cases
actual damages against petitioner. to include new causes of action against new parties, like BSP.
 RTC: granted the Motion to Admit filed by Banco Filipino and accordingly  RTC: granted the Motion to Admit Banco Filipino’s Second
admitted the latter’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint. Hence, CB-BOL Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
was substituted for the defunct CB in the said cases.  CA: affirmed in toto the trial court’s Order admitting the Second
 More than 10 years from the enactment of R.A. 7653, Banco Filipino Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
again filed a Motion to Admit Second Amended/Supplemental o There were no new parties impleaded in the civil cases when the
Complaint. Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint was admitted by the
o Respondent sought to include the BSP and its MB – the trial court since pursuant to R.A. 7653, the BSP was the
purported successor-in-interest of the old CB – as additional successor-in-interest of the old CB. Further, with the transfer of
defendants for: assets from the CB to the BSP during the pendency of the subject
 refusing to grant it a universal banking license, among civil cases, the latter now became a transferee pendente lite.
others.
 The BSP and the MB engaged in a smear campaign Issue: WON RTC erred in admitting Banco Filipino’s Second
against Banco Filipino intended to undermine the trust Amended/Supplemental Complaint in the consolidated civil cases before it.
and confidence of its depositors and the public in
general. Held: YES. (refer to bold texts)
 With the objective of gaining control of respondent
bank, the BSP disqualified a member of the former’s The second amendment of the Complaint was improper.
board of directors.
 The BSP and its MB conspired with a group of minority 1. Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to amend
stockholders of Banco Filipino to institute a case their pleadings –
against respondent and thereby place it under a state of (a) by adding or striking out an allegation or a party’s name; or
receivership or conservatorship or under a management (b) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken
committee. or an inadequate allegation or description in the pleadings for the purpose
of determining the actual merits of the controversy in the most inexpensive a. HOWEVER, the option of a party-litigant to supplement a
and expeditious manner. pleading is not without limitation.
b. A supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something
 The prevailing rule on the amendment of pleadings is one of liberality, with the to the primary pleading. Its usual function is to set up new facts
end of obtaining substantial justice for the parties. However, the option of a that justify, enlarge, or change the kind of relief sought with
party-litigant to amend a pleading is not without limitation. respect to the same subject matter as that of the original
complaint.
 If the purpose is to set up a CoA not existing at the time of the filing of the c. A supplemental complaint must be founded on the same
complaint  amendment is NOT allowed. cause of action as that raised in the original complaint.
d. the fact that a supplemental pleading technically states a new
 If NO right existed at the time the action was commenced  the suit cannot be cause of action should not be a bar to its allowance, still, the
maintained, even if the right of action may have accrued thereafter. matter stated in the supplemental complaint must have a
relation to the cause of action set forth in the original
@: the causes of action subject of the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint only pleading.
arose in 1994. The original Complaint was based on the alleged illegal closure of e. That is, the matter must be germane and intertwined with the
Banco Filipino effected in 1985 by the defunct CB and its MB. cause of action stated in the original complaint so that the
o Since the acts or omissions allegedly committed in violation of principal and core issues raised by the parties in their original
respondent’s rights are different, they constitute separate causes pleadings remain the same.
of action.
o the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint stemmed from the
alleged oppressive and arbitrary acts committed by the BSP and @: Banco Filipino, through the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint, attempted
its MB against Banco Filipino after respondent bank was to raise new and different causes of action that arose only in 1994. These causes of
reopened in 1994. Since the acts or omissions allegedly action had no relation whatsoever to the causes of action in the original Complaint, as
committed in violation of respondent’s rights are different, they they involved different acts or omissions, transactions, and parties. If the Court admits
constitute separate causes of action. the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint under these circumstances, there will
o Proof: respondent asks the Court to order the defendants to pay, be no end to the process of amending the Complaint.
among others, actual damages of at least P18.8 billion  The acts
complained of cover not just the conservatorship, receivership,
IN SUM: whether viewed as an amendment or a supplement to the original Complaint,
closure, and liquidation of Banco Filipino in 1984 and 1985, but
the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint should not have been admitted.
also the alleged acts of harassment committed by the BSP and
its MB after respondent bank was reopened in 1994. In effect,
respondent raised new causes of action and asserted a new relief
in the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
o If it is admitted, the RTC would need to look into the propriety of
two entirely different causes of action. This is not countenanced
by law, as explained in the preceding paragraphs.

The second supplemental pleading was improper.

2. Rule 10 of the 1997 ROC allows the parties to supplement their pleadings
by setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the
date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.

Potrebbero piacerti anche