Mercantile Law Cases 2

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 109563 July 9, 1996
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, MARIA AMOR BASCOS and MARCIANO BASCOS, respondents.
This is a petition seeking review of the decision dated August 10, 1992,1 of the Eighth Division of the Court of Appeals
and its resolution dated March 25, 1993,2 both rendered in CA-G.R. CV No. 27653, which affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Jose City (Branch 38).
The facts are as follows:
On June 4, 1979, private respondent spouses Maria Amor and Marciano Bascos obtained a loan from the Philippine
National Bank in the amount of P15,000.00 evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a real estate mortgage.
The promissory note contained the following stipulation:3
For value received, I/we, [private respondents] jointly and severally promise to pay to the ORDER of
the PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, at its office in San Jose City, Philippines, the sum of FIFTEEN
THOUSAND ONLY (P15,000.00), Philippine Currency, together with interest thereon at the rate of
12% per annum until paid, which interest rate the Bank may at any time without notice, raise within the
limits allowed by law, and I/we also agree to pay jointly and severally ____ % per annum penalty charge,
by way of liquidated damages should this note be unpaid or is not renewed on due date.
Payment of this note shall be as follows:
* THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS * AFTER DATE
On the reverse side of the note the following condition was stamped:4
All short-term loans to be granted starting January 1, 1978 shall be made subject to the condition that
any and/or all extensions hereof that will leave any portion of the amount still unpaid after 730 days shall
automatically convert the outstanding balance into a medium or long-term obligation as the case may be
and give the Bank the right to charge the interest rates prescribed under it policies from the date the
account was originally granted.
To secure payment of the loan the parties executed a real estate mortgage contract which provided: 5
(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:
The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this mortgage as well as the interest on the
amount which may have been advanced by the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provision
hereof, shall be subject during the life of this contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by
law, as the Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors.
On December 12, 1980, PNB extended the period of payment of the loan to June 5, 1981, thus converting the loan from
a short-term to a medium-term loan, i.e., a loan which matured over two to five years.6 PNB also increased the rate of
interest per annum, first to 14%, effective December 1, 1979; 7 then to 22% effective February 21, 1983;8 to 22.5%
effective June 20, 1983;9 to 23% from November 2, 1983; 10 to 25% effective March 2, 1984; 11 and finally to 28% from
April 10, 1984. 12
Because private respondents defaulted in paying their obligation, the Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Ecija scheduled the
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage on June 15, 1984 to pay private respondents' indebtedness which, according to
PNB, had increased from P15,000.00 to P35,125.84, plus 28% annual interest. 13
Private respondents brought suit against PNB, its Branch Manager Jetro Godoy, and the Provincial Sheriff of Nueva Ecija
Numeriano Y. Galang (1) for a declaration of nullity of C.B. Monetary Board Resolution No. 2126 dated November 29,
1979 (embodied in C.B. Circular No. 705 dated December 1, 1979), which increased the ceiling on the interest rate of
secured and unsecured loans to 16% per annum and 14% per annum, respectively, on the ground that it was contrary to
the Usury Law, good morals, public policy, customs and traditions, social justice, due process and the equal protection
clause of the Constitution; and (2) for a declaration that the interest rate increases on their loan were contrary to Art. 1959
of the Civil Code which provides that interest due and unpaid shall not earn interest. Pending final determination of the
case, private respondents asked that the auction sale be enjoined.
PNB filed an answer with compulsory counterclaim. It alleged that private respondents had no cause of action because
§1-a of the Usury Law, as amended by P.D. No. 1684, did not limit the number of times the interest could be increased
and that private respondents were estopped from questioning the increases because they failed to object to the same. PNB
asked that the complaint be dismissed and that private respondents be ordered to pay P35,125.84, plus interest from April
10, 1984, until the obligation was fully paid, attorney's fees and moral damages in such amount as may be determined by
the court.
On June 13, 1984 private respondents deposited with the clerk of court P8,000.00 14 and on January 15, 1985
P2,000.00, 15 in partial payment of their loan.
On June 15, 1990, the RTC rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. There having [sic] no evidence against the defendants Jetro Godoy, and the Provincial Sheriff of Nueva
Ecija, Numeriano Galang, the case against them is dismissed;
2. The increase in interest rates based on the escalation clauses in the Promissory Note and the Real
Estate Mortgage, par. K, being contrary to Sec. 3, P.D. No. 116 are declared null and void, that
henceforth, the defendant PNB is hereby directed to desist from enforcing the increased rate of interest
more than TWELVE (12%) per cent on plaintiffs' loan;
3. The compulsory counterclaim of the defendants is also dismissed;
4. On the other hand, the plaintiffs can settle their unpaid obligation with the defendant PNB at the
interest rate of TWELVE (12%) per cent per annum computed from the inception of the loan until the
same is fully paid; advances made by the PNB for insurance premiums and penalties added; and the
P10,000.00 paid to and defendant bank to be credited as payment by the plaintiffs;
5. Plaintiff's claim for damages is, likewise, dismissed; and
6. The parties shall each bear out [sic] the expenses incurred by them.
SO ORDERED.
The RTC invalidated the stipulations in the promissory note and the real estate mortgage, which authorized PNB to
increase the interest rate, on the ground that there was no corresponding stipulation that the interest rate would be reduced
in the event the law reduced the applicable maximum rate as provided under P.D. No. 1684; that P.D. No. 116, which
sets a ceiling of 12% interest on secured loans, is a "law," which should prevail over Circular No. 705, used by PNB to
increase the interest; that collection of the increased interest sanctions unjust enrichment contrary to Art. 22 of the Civil
Code; and that the promissory note and real estate mortgage were contracts of adhesion which should be interpreted in
favor of private respondents.
PNB appealed. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that the
escalation clause in the promissory note could not be given effect because of the absence of a provision for a de-escalation
in the event a reduction of interest was ordered by law. In addition it held that pursuant to the escalation clause any
increase in interest must be within "the limits allowed by law" but C.B. circulars, on the basis of which PNB increased
the interest, could not be considered "laws".
PNB moved for a reconsideration. As its motion was denied, it filed this petition. PNB's argument is that the Court of
Appeals erred in applying §2 of P.D. No. 1684, which makes the validity of an escalation clause turn on the presence of
a de-escalation clause, to the promissory note and real estate mortgage in this case. PNB contends that the two had been
executed on June 4, 1979, before the effectivity of P.D. No. 1684 on March 17, 1980.
To begin with, PNB's argument rests on a misapprehension of the import of the appellate court's ruling. The Court of
Appeals nullified the interest rate increases not because the promissory note did not comply with P.D. No. 1684 by
providing for a de-escalation, but because the absence of such provision made the clause so one-sided as to make it
unreasonable.
That ruling is correct. It is in line with our decision in Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank v. Navarro 16 that
although P.D. No. 1684 is not to be retroactively applied to loans granted before its effectivity, there must nevertheless
be a de-escalation clause to mitigate the one-sideness of the escalation clause. Indeed because of concern for the unequal
status of borrowers vis-a-vis the banks, our cases after Banco Filipino have fashioned the rule that any increase in the
rate of interest made pursuant to an escalation clause must be the result of agreement between the parties.
Thus in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 17 two promissory notes authorized PNB to increase the stipulated
interest per annum "within the limits allowed by law at any time depending on whatever policy [PNB] may adopt in the
future; Provided, that the interest rate on this note shall be correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable
maximum interest rate is reduced by law or by the Monetary Board." The real estate mortgage likewise provided:
The rate of interest charged on the obligation secured by this mortgage as well as the interest on the
amount which may have been advanced by the MORTGAGEE, in accordance with the provisions hereof,
shall be subject during the life of this contract to such an increase within the rate allowed by law, as the
Board of Directors of the MORTGAGEE may prescribe for its debtors.
Pursuant to these clauses, PNB successively increased the interest from 18% to 32%, then to 41% and then to 48%. This
Court declared the increases unilaterally imposed by PNB to be in violation of the principle of mutuality as embodied in
Art. 1308 of the Civil Code, which provides that "[t]he contract must bind both contracting parties; its validity or
compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them." As the Court explained: 18
In order that obligations arising from contracts may have the force of law between the parties, there must
be mutuality between the parties based on their essential equality. A contract containing a condition
which makes its fulfillment dependent exclusively upon the uncontrolled will of one of the contracting
parties, is void (Garcia vs. Rita Legarda, Inc., 21 SCRA 555). Hence, even assuming that the P1.8 million
loan agreement between the PNB a license (although in fact there was none) to increase the interest rate
at will during the term of the loan, that license would have been null and void for being violative of the
principle of mutuality essential in contracts. It would have invested the loan agreement with the character
of a contract of adhesion, where the parties do not bargain on equal footing, the weaker party's (the
debtor) participation being reduced to the alternative "to take it or leave it" (Qua vs. Law Union & Rock
Insurance Co., 95 Phil. 85). Such a contract is a veritable trap for the weaker party whom the courts of
justice must protect against abuse and imposition.
A similar ruling was made in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals. 19 The credit agreement in that case provided:
The BANK reserves the right to increase the interest rate within the limits allowed by law at any time
depending on whatever policy it may adopt in the future: Provided, that the interest rate on this
accommodation shall be correspondingly decreased in the event that the applicable maximum interest is
reduced by law or by the Monetary Boar. . . .
As in the first case, PNB successively increased the stipulated interest so that what was originally 12% per
annum became, after only two years, 42%. In declaring the increases invalid, we held: 20
We cannot countenance petitioner bank's posturing that the escalation clause at bench gives it unbridled
right to unilaterally upwardly adjust the interest on private respondents' loan. That
would completely take away from private respondents the right to assent to an important modification in
their agreement, and would negate the element of mutuality in contracts.
Only recently we invalidated another round of interest increases decreed by PNB pursuant to a similar agreement it had
with other borrowers: 21
[W]hile the Usury Law ceiling on interest rates was lifted by C.B. Circular 905, nothing in the said
circular could possibly be read as granting respondent bank carte blanche authority to raise interest rates
to levels which would either enslave its borrowers or lead to a hemorrhaging of their assets.
In this case no attempt was made by PNB to secure the conformity of private respondents to the successive increases in
the interest rate. Private respondents' assent to the increase can not be implied from their lack of response to the letters
sent by PNB, informing them of the increases. For as stated in one case, 22 no one receiving a proposal to change a
contract is obliged to answer the proposal.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 19-24; per Justice Luis A. Javellana and concurred in by Justices Eduardo R. Bengzon and Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr.
2 Id., pp. 26-27; per Justice Luis A. Javellana and concurred in by Justices Quirino D. Abad Santos, Jr. and Consuelo Yñares-Santiago.
3 Exh. B, Folder of Exhibits, p. 3.
4 Reverse side of Exh. B, id.
5 Exh. C, id., p. 5.
6 Supra at note 4.
7 PNB's letter to private respondents dated December 20, 1979, Exh. D, Folder of Exhibits, p. 6.
8 PNB's letter to private respondents dated March 12, 1984, Exh. A, id., p. 2.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Exh. E, id., p. 7.
13 Ibid.
14 Exh. H, Folder of Exhibits, p. 28.
15 Exh. H-1, id., p. 29.
16 152 SCRA 346 (1987).
17 196 SCRA 536 (1991).
18 Id., at 545.
19 238 SCRA 20 (1994).
20 Id., at 26.
21 Spouses Almeda v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113412, April 17, 1996.
22 Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, 238 SCRA 20 (1994).
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 184778 October 2, 2009
BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD and CHUCHI FONACIER, Petitioners,

vs.
HON. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, in her capacity as Regional Trial Court Judge of Manila, Branch 28;
RURAL BANK OF PARAÑAQUE, INC.; RURAL BANK OF SAN JOSE (BATANGAS), INC.; RURAL BANK OF
CARMEN (CEBU), INC.; PILIPINO RURAL BANK, INC.; PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, INC.;
RURAL BANK OF CALATAGAN (BATANGAS), INC. (now DYNAMIC RURAL BANK); RURAL BANK OF
DARBCI, INC.; RURAL BANK OF KANANGA (LEYTE), INC. (now FIRST INTERSTATE RURAL BANK);
RURAL BANK OF BISAYAS MINGLANILLA (now BANK OF EAST ASIA); and SAN PABLO CITY
DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC., Respondents.
DECISION
The Case
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO)/Writ of Preliminary Injunction, questioning the Decision dated September 30, 20081 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. SP No. 103935. The CA Decision upheld the Order2 dated June 4, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 28 in Manila, issuing writs of preliminary injunction in Civil Case Nos. 08-119243, 08-119244, 08-119245, 08-
119246, 08-119247, 08-119248, 08-119249, 08-119250, 08-119251, and 08-119273, and the Order dated May 21, 2008 that
consolidated the civil cases.
The Facts
In September of 2007, the Supervision and Examination Department (SED) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
conducted examinations of the books of the following banks: Rural Bank of Parañaque, Inc. (RBPI), Rural Bank of San
Jose (Batangas), Inc., Rural Bank of Carmen (Cebu), Inc., Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc., Philippine Countryside Rural Bank,
Inc., Rural Bank of Calatagan (Batangas), Inc. (now Dynamic Rural Bank), Rural Bank of Darbci, Inc., Rural Bank of
Kananga (Leyte), Inc. (now First Interstate Rural Bank), Rural Bank de Bisayas Minglanilla (now Bank of East Asia), and
San Pablo City Development Bank, Inc.
After the examinations, exit conferences were held with the officers or representatives of the banks wherein the SED
examiners provided them with copies of Lists of Findings/Exceptions containing the deficiencies discovered during the
examinations. These banks were then required to comment and to undertake the remedial measures stated in these lists
within 30 days from their receipt of the lists, which remedial measures included the infusion of additional capital. Though
the banks claimed that they made the additional capital infusions, petitioner Chuchi Fonacier, officer-in-charge of the SED,
sent separate letters to the Board of Directors of each bank, informing them that the SED found that the banks failed to carry
out the required remedial measures. In response, the banks requested that they be given time to obtain BSP approval to
amend their Articles of Incorporation, that they have an opportunity to seek investors. They requested as well that the basis
for the capital infusion figures be disclosed, and noted that none of them had received the Report of Examination (ROE)
which finalizes the audit findings. They also requested meetings with the BSP audit teams to reconcile audit figures. In
response, Fonacier reiterated the banks’ failure to comply with the directive for additional capital infusions.
On May 12, 2008, the RBPI filed a complaint for nullification of the BSP ROE with application for a TRO and writ of
preliminary injunction before the RTC docketed as Civil Case No. 08-119243 against Fonacier, the BSP, Amado M.
Tetangco, Jr., Romulo L. Neri, Vicente B. Valdepenas, Jr., Raul A. Boncan, Juanita D. Amatong, Alfredo C. Antonio, and
Nelly F. Villafuerte. RBPI prayed that Fonacier, her subordinates, agents, or any other person acting in her behalf be
enjoined from submitting the ROE or any similar report to the Monetary Board (MB), or if the ROE had already been
submitted, the MB be enjoined from acting on the basis of said ROE, on the allegation that the failure to furnish the bank
with a copy of the ROE violated its right to due process.
The Rural Bank of San Jose (Batangas), Inc., Rural Bank of Carmen (Cebu), Inc., Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc., Philippine
Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., Rural Bank of Calatagan (Batangas), Inc., Rural Bank of Darbci, Inc., Rural Bank of Kananga
(Leyte), Inc., and Rural Bank de Bisayas Minglanilla followed suit, filing complaints with the RTC substantially similar to
that of RBPI, including the reliefs prayed for, which were raffled to different branches and docketed as Civil Cases Nos.
08-119244, 08-119245, 08-119246, 08-119247, 08-119248, 08-119249, 08-119250, and 08-119251, respectively.
On May 13, 2008, the RTC denied the prayer for a TRO of Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc. The bank filed a motion for
reconsideration the next day.
On May 14, 2008, Fonacier and the BSP filed their opposition to the application for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
in Civil Case No. 08-119243 with the RTC. Respondent Judge Nina Antonio-Valenzuela of Branch 28 granted RBPI’s
prayer for the issuance of a TRO.
The other banks separately filed motions for consolidation of their cases in Branch 28, which motions were granted. Judge
Valenzuela set the complaint of Rural Bank of San Jose (Batangas), Inc. for hearing on May 15, 2008. Petitioners assailed
the validity of the consolidation of the nine cases before the RTC, alleging that the court had already prejudged the case by
the earlier issuance of a TRO in Civil Case No. 08-119243, and moved for the inhibition of respondent judge. Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the consolidation of the subject cases.
On May 16, 2008, San Pablo City Development Bank, Inc. filed a similar complaint against the same defendants with the
RTC, and this was docketed as Civil Case No. 08-119273 that was later on consolidated with Civil Case No. 08-119243.
Petitioners filed an Urgent Motion to Lift/Dissolve the TRO and an Opposition to the earlier motion for reconsideration of
Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc.
On May 19, 2008, Judge Valenzuela issued an Order granting the prayer for the issuance of TROs for the other seven cases
consolidated with Civil Case No. 08-119243. On May 21, 2008, Judge Valenzuela issued an Order denying petitioners’
motion for reconsideration regarding the consolidation of cases in Branch 28. On May 22, 2008, Judge Valenzuela granted
the urgent motion for reconsideration of Pilipino Rural Bank, Inc. and issued a TRO similar to the ones earlier issued.
On May 26, 2008, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss against all the complaints (except that of the San Pablo City
Development Bank, Inc.), on the grounds that the complaints stated no cause of action and that a condition precedent for
filing the cases had not been complied with. On May 29, 2008, a hearing was conducted on the application for a TRO and
for a writ of preliminary injunction of San Pablo City Development Bank, Inc.
The Ruling of the RTC
After the parties filed their respective memoranda, the RTC, on June 4, 2008, ruled that the banks were entitled to the writs
of preliminary injunction prayed for. It held that it had been the practice of the SED to provide the ROEs to the banks before
submission to the MB. It further held that as the banks are the subjects of examinations, they are entitled to copies of the
ROEs. The denial by petitioners of the banks’ requests for copies of the ROEs was held to be a denial of the banks’ right to
due process.
The dispositive portion of the RTC’s order reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court rules as follows:
1) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119243. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff Rural
Bank of Paranaque Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of P500,000.00 to the
effect that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may sustain by reason of the injunction if
the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After posting of the bond and approval
thereof, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the defendants from submitting the
Report of Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on the
plaintiff, to the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any other similar report prepared in
connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to the Monetary Board, the latter
and its members (i.e. defendants Tetangco, Neri, Valdepenas, Boncan, Amatong, Antonio, and Villafuerte) are
enjoined and restrained from acting on the basis of said report.
Bank of San Jose (Batangas), Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of
P500,000.00 to the effect that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may sustain by reason
of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After posting of the
bond and approval thereof, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the defendants from
submitting the Report of Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the examination
conducted on the plaintiff, to the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any other similar
report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to the Monetary
Board, the latter and its members (i.e. defendants Tetangco, Neri, Valdepenas, Boncan, Amatong, Antonio, and
Villafuerte) are enjoined and restrained from acting on the basis of said report.
Bank of Carmen (Cebu), Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of P500,000.00
to the effect that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may sustain by reason of the
injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After posting of the bond and
approval thereof, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the defendants from submitting
the Report of Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on
the plaintiff, to the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any other similar report prepared
in connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to the Monetary Board, the latter
4) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119246. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff Pilipino
Rural Bank Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of P500,000.00 to the effect
that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may sustain by reason of the injunction if the
Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After posting of the bond and approval thereof,
let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the defendants from submitting the Report of
Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff, to
the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any other similar report prepared in connection
with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to the Monetary Board, the latter and its
members (i.e. defendants Tetangco, Neri, Valdepenas, Boncan, Amatong, Antonio, and Villafuerte) are enjoined
and restrained from acting on the basis of said report.
5) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119247. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff
Philippine Countryside Rural Bank Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of
6) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119248. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff Dynamic
Bank Inc. (Rural Bank of Calatagan) is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of
Bank of DARBCI, Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of P500,000.00 to the
effect that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may sustain by reason of the injunction if
the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After posting of the bond and approval
thereof, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the defendants from submitting the
Report of Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on the
plaintiff, to the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any other similar report prepared in
connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to the Monetary Board, the latter
Bank of Kananga Inc. (First Intestate Bank), is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of
9) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119251. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff Banco
Rural De Bisayas Minglanilla (Cebu) Inc. (Bank of East Asia) is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants,
in the amount of P500,000.00 to the effect that the plaintiff will pay to the defendants all damages which they may
sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled thereto. After
posting of the bond and approval thereof, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued to enjoin and restrain the
defendants from submitting the Report of Examination or any other similar report prepared in connection with the
examination conducted on the plaintiff, to the Monetary Board. In case such a Report on Examination [sic] or any
other similar report prepared in connection with the examination conducted on the plaintiff has been submitted to
the Monetary Board, the latter and its members (i.e. defendants Tetangco, Neri, Valdepenas, Boncan, Amatong,
Antonio, and Villafuerte) are enjoined and restrained from acting on the basis of said report.
10) Re: Civil Case No. 08-119273. Pursuant to Rule 58, Section 4(b) of the Revised Rules of Court, plaintiff San
Pablo City Development Bank, Inc. is directed to post a bond executed to the defendants, in the amount of
Villafuerte) are enjoined and restrained from acting on the basis of said report.3
The Ruling of the CA
Petitioners then brought the matter to the CA via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 claiming grave abuse of discretion
on the part of Judge Valenzuela when she issued the orders dated May 21, 2008 and June 4, 2008.
The CA ruled that the RTC committed no grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and when it ordered the consolidation of the 10 cases.
It held that petitioners should have first filed a motion for reconsideration of the assailed orders, and failed to justify why
they resorted to a special civil action of certiorari instead.
The CA also found that aside from the technical aspect, there was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC, and
if there was a mistake in the assessment of evidence by the trial court, that should be characterized as an error of judgment,
and should be correctable via appeal.
The CA held that the principles of fairness and transparency dictate that the respondent banks are entitled to copies of the
ROE.
Regarding the consolidation of the 10 cases, the CA found that there was a similarity of facts, reliefs sought, issues raised,
defendants, and that plaintiffs and defendants were represented by the same sets of counsels. It found that the joint trial of
these cases would prejudice any substantial right of petitioners.
Finding that no grave abuse of discretion attended the issuance of the orders by the RTC, the CA denied the petition.
On November 24, 2008, a TRO was issued by this Court, restraining the CA, RTC, and respondents from implementing and
enforcing the CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 103935.4
By reason of the TRO issued by this Court, the SED was able to submit their ROEs to the MB. The MB then prohibited the
respondent banks from transacting business and placed them under receivership under Section 53 of Republic Act No. (RA)
87915 and Sec. 30 of RA
76536 through MB Resolution No. 1616 dated December 9, 2008; Resolution Nos. 1637 and 1638 dated December 11,
2008; Resolution Nos. 1647, 1648, and 1649 dated December 12, 2008; Resolution Nos. 1652 and 1653 dated December
16, 2008; and Resolution Nos. 1692 and 1695 dated December 19, 2008, with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation
as the appointed receiver.
Now we resolve the main petition.
Grounds in Support of Petition
I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE
INJUNCTION ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT VIOLATED SECTION 25 OF THE NEW
CENTRAL BANK ACT AND EFFECTIVELY HANDCUFFED THE BANGKO SENTRAL FROM
DISCHARGING ITS FUNCTIONS TO THE GREAT AND IRREPARABLE DAMAGE OF THE
COUNTRY’S BANKING SYSTEM;
II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT

RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO BE FURNISHED COPIES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE
ROEs BEFORE THE SAME IS SUBMITTED TO THE MONETARY BOARD IN VIEW OF THE
PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY DESPITE LACK OF EXPRESS PROVISION IN
THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT REQUIRING BSP TO DO THE SAME
III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DEPARTING FROM WELL-
ESTABLISHED PRECEPTS OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
A. THE EXCEPTIONS CITED BY PETITIONER JUSTIFIED RESORT TO PETITION FOR

CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 65 INSTEAD OF FIRST FILING A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
B. RESPONDENT BANKS’ ACT OF RESORTING IMMEDIATELY TO THE COURT WAS

PREMATURE SINCE IT WAS MADE IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE PRINCIPLE OF
PRIMARY JURISDICTION AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
C. THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BY THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT WAS NOT ONLY IMPROPER BUT AMOUNTED TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION7
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
In Lim v. Court of Appeals it was stated:
The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial;
(b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage.
As such, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected
during the pendency of the principal action. The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its
actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against
that right must be shown.8
These requirements are absent in the present case.
In granting the writs of preliminary injunction, the trial court held that the submission of the ROEs to the MB before the
respondent banks would violate the right to due process of said banks.
This is erroneous.
The respondent banks have failed to show that they are entitled to copies of the ROEs. They can point to no provision of
law, no section in the procedures of the BSP that shows that the BSP is required to give them copies of the ROEs. Sec. 28
of RA 7653, or the New Central Bank Act, which governs examinations of banking institutions, provides that the ROE shall
be submitted to the MB; the bank examined is not mentioned as a recipient of the ROE.
The respondent banks cannot claim a violation of their right to due process if they are not provided with copies of the ROEs.
The same ROEs are based on the lists of findings/exceptions containing the deficiencies found by the SED examiners when
they examined the books of the respondent banks. As found by the RTC, these lists of findings/exceptions were furnished
to the officers or representatives of the respondent banks, and the respondent banks were required to comment and to
undertake remedial measures stated in said lists. Despite these instructions, respondent banks failed to comply with the
SED’s directive.
Respondent banks are already aware of what is required of them by the BSP, and cannot claim violation of their right to due
process simply because they are not furnished with copies of the ROEs. Respondent banks were held by the CA to be
entitled to copies of the ROEs prior to or simultaneously with their submission to the MB, on the principles of fairness and
transparency. Further, the CA held that if the contents of the ROEs are essentially the same as those of the lists of
findings/exceptions provided to said banks, there is no reason not to give copies of the ROEs to the banks. This is a flawed
conclusion, since if the banks are already aware of the contents of the ROEs, they cannot say that fairness and transparency
are not present. If sanctions are to be imposed upon the respondent banks, they are already well aware of the reasons for the
sanctions, having been informed via the lists of findings/exceptions, demolishing that particular argument. The ROEs would
then be superfluities to the respondent banks, and should not be the basis for a writ of preliminary injunction. Also, the
reliance of the RTC on Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board9 is misplaced. The petitioner in that case was held to be entitled
to annexes of the Supervision and Examination Sector’s reports, as it already had a copy of the reports themselves. It was
not the subject of the case whether or not the petitioner was entitled to a copy of the reports. And the ruling was made after
the petitioner bank was ordered closed, and it was allowed to be supplied with annexes of the reports in order to better
prepare its defense. In this instance, at the time the respondent banks requested copies of the ROEs, no action had yet been
taken by the MB with regard to imposing sanctions upon said banks.
The issuance by the RTC of writs of preliminary injunction is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the MB. Secs.
29 and 30 of RA 765310 refer to the appointment of a conservator or a receiver for a bank, which is a power of the MB for
which they need the ROEs done by the supervising or examining department. The writs of preliminary injunction issued by
the trial court hinder the MB from fulfilling its function under the law. The actions of the MB under Secs. 29 and 30 of RA
7653 "may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken
was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction." The writs
of preliminary injunction order are precisely what cannot be done under the law by preventing the MB from taking action
under either Sec. 29 or Sec. 30 of RA 7653.
As to the third requirement, the respondent banks have shown no necessity for the writ of preliminary injunction to prevent
serious damage. The serious damage contemplated by the trial court was the possibility of the imposition of sanctions upon
respondent banks, even the sanction of closure. Under the law, the sanction of closure could be imposed upon a bank by the
BSP even without notice and hearing. The apparent lack of procedural due process would not result in the invalidity of
action by the MB. This was the ruling in Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals.11 This "close now, hear later"
scheme is grounded on practical and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets and as a
valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public. The writ of
preliminary injunction cannot, thus, prevent the MB from taking action, by preventing the submission of the ROEs and
worse, by preventing the MB from acting on such ROEs.
The trial court required the MB to respect the respondent banks’ right to due process by allowing the respondent banks to
view the ROEs and act upon them to forestall any sanctions the MB might impose. Such procedure has no basis in law and
does in fact violate the "close now, hear later" doctrine. We held in Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. v. Monetary Board,
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas:
It is well-settled that the closure of a bank may be considered as an exercise of police power. The action of the MB on this
matter is final and executory. Such exercise may nonetheless be subject to judicial inquiry and can be set aside if found to
be in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. 12
The respondent banks cannot—through seeking a writ of preliminary injunction by appealing to lack of due process, in a
roundabout manner— prevent their closure by the MB. Their remedy, as stated, is a subsequent one, which will determine
whether the closure of the bank was attended by grave abuse of discretion. Judicial review enters the picture only after the
MB has taken action; it cannot prevent such action by the MB. The threat of the imposition of sanctions, even that of closure,
does not violate their right to due process, and cannot be the basis for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The "close now, hear later" doctrine has already been justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. Swift
action is called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire straits. Unless adequate and determined efforts
are taken by the government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public faith in the banking system is certain to
deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy itself, not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors,
creditors, and stockholders, who all deserve the protection of the government.13
The respondent banks have failed to show their entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction. It must be emphasized that
an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against the pleader.14 The respondent banks cannot rely on a simple
appeal to procedural due process to prove entitlement. The requirements for the issuance of the writ have not been proved.
No invasion of the rights of respondent banks has been shown, nor is their right to copies of the ROEs clear and
unmistakable. There is also no necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Indeed the issuance of the writ of preliminary
injunction tramples upon the powers of the MB and prevents it from fulfilling its functions. There is no right that the writ
of preliminary injunction would protect in this particular case. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the
injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion.15 In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by
the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified. 16
Courts are hereby reminded to take greater care in issuing injunctive relief to litigants, that it would not violate any law.
The grant of a preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat that it should be
made with great caution.17 Thus, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction must have basis in and be in accordance
with law. All told, while the grant or denial of an injunction generally rests on the sound discretion of the lower court, this
Court may and should intervene in a clear case of abuse.18
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The assailed CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No.
103935 is hereby REVERSED. The assailed order and writ of preliminary injunction of respondent Judge Valenzuela in
Civil Case Nos. 08-119243, 08-119244, 08-119245, 08-119246, 08-119247, 08-119248, 08-119249, 08-119250, 08-
119251, and 08-119273 are hereby declared NULL and VOID.
SO ORDERED.
Footnotes without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from doing
1
Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and business in the Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit
concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking institution.
Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo. For a quasi-bank, any person of recognized competence in
2
Penned by Judge Nina G. Antonio Valenzuela. banking or finance may be designed as receiver.
3
Rollo, pp. 352-356. The receiver shall immediately gather and take charge of all the
4
Id. at 457-459. assets and liabilities of the institution, administer the same for
5
SECTION 53. Other Banking Services.—In addition to the the benefit of its creditors, and exercise the general powers of a
operations specifically authorized in this Act, a bank may receiver under the Revised Rules of Court but shall not, with
perform the following services: the exception of administrative expenditures, pay or commit
53.1. Receive in custody funds, documents and valuable any act that will involve the transfer or disposition of any asset
objects; of the institution: Provided, That the receiver may deposit or
53.2. Act as financial agent and buy and sell, by order of and place the funds of the institution in nonspeculative investments.
for the account of their customers, shares, evidences of The receiver shall determine as soon as possible, but not later
indebtedness and all types of securities; than ninety (90) days from take over, whether the institution
53.3. Make collections and payments for the account of others may be rehabilitated or otherwise placed in such a condition so
and perform such other services for their customers as are not that it may be permitted to resume business with safety to its
incompatible with banking business; depositors and creditors and the general public: Provided, That
53.4. Upon prior approval of the Monetary Board, act as any determination for the resumption of business of the
managing agent, adviser, consultant or administrator of institution shall be subject to prior approval of the Monetary
investment management/advisory/consultancy accounts; and Board.
53.5. Rent out safety deposit boxes. If the receiver determines that the institution cannot be
The bank shall perform the services permitted under rehabilitated or permitted to resume business in accordance
Subsections 53.1, 53.2, 53.3 and 53.4 as depositary or as an with the next preceding paragraph, the Monetary Board shall
agent. Accordingly, it shall keep the funds, securities and other notify in writing the board of directors of its findings and direct
effects which it receives duly separate from the bank’s own the receiver to proceed with the liquidation of the institution.
assets and liabilities. The receiver shall:
The Monetary Board may regulate the operations authorized by 1. file ex parte with the proper regional trial court, and without
this Section in order to ensure that such operations do not requirement of prior notice or any other action, a petition for
endanger the interests of the depositors and other creditors of assistance in the liquidation of the institution pursuant to a
the bank. liquidation plan adopted by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
In case a bank or quasi-bank notifies the Bangko Sentral or Corporation for general application to all closed banks. In case
publicly announces a bank holiday, or in any manner suspends of quasi-banks, the liquidation plan shall be adopted by the
the payment of its deposit liabilities continuously for more than Monetary Board. Upon acquiring jurisdiction, the court shall,
thirty (30) days, the Monetary Board may summarily and upon motion by the receiver after due notice, adjudicate
without need for prior hearing close such banking institution disputed claims against the institution, assist the enforcement of
and individual liabilities of the stockholders, directors and officers,
place it under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance and decide on other issues as may be material to implement the
Corporation. liquidation plan adopted. The receiver shall pay the cost of the
6
SECTION 30. Proceedings in Receivership and proceedings from the assets of the institution.
Liquidation.—Whenever, upon report of the head of the 2. convert the assets of the institutions to money, dispose of the
supervising or examining department, the Monetary Board same to creditors and other parties, for the purpose of paying
finds that a bank or quasibank: the debts of such institution in accordance with the rules on
(a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the concurrence and preference of credit under the Civil Code of
ordinary course of business: Provided, That this shall not the Philippines and he may, in the name of the institution, and
include inability to pay caused by extraordinary demands with the assistance of counsel as he may retain, institute such
induced by financial panic in the banking community; actions as may be necessary to collect and recover accounts and
(b) by the Bangko Sentral, to meet its liabilities; or assets of, or defend any action against, the institution. The assets
(c) cannot continue in business without involving probable of an institution under receivership or liquidation shall be
losses to its depositors or creditors; or deemed in custodia legis in the hands of the receiver and shall,
(d) has willfully violated a cease and desist order under Section from the moment the institution was placed under such
37 that has become final, involving acts or transactions which receivership or liquidation, be exempt from any order of
amount to fraud or a dissipation of the assets of the institution; garnishment, levy, attachment, or execution.
in which cases, the Monetary Board may summarily and
The actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or SECTION 30. Proceedings in Receivership and Liquidation.—
under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and executory, and Whenever, upon report of the head of the supervising or
may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or
for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess quasi bank:
of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to (a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition ordinary course of business: Provided, That this shall not
for certiorari may only be filed by the stockholders of record include inability to pay caused by extraordinary demands
representing the majority of the capital stock within ten (10) induced by financial panic in the banking community;
days from receipt by the board of directors of the institution of (b) by the Bangko Sentral, to meet its liabilities; or
the order directing receivership, liquidation or conservatorship. (c) cannot continue in business without involving probable
The designation of a conservator under Section 29 of this Act losses to its depositors or creditors; or
or the appointment of a receiver under this section shall be (d) has willfully violated a cease and desist order under Section
vested exclusively with the Monetary Board. Furthermore, the 37 that has become final, involving acts or transactions which
designation of a conservator is not a precondition to the amount to fraud or a dissipation of the assets of the institution;
designation of a receiver. in which cases, the Monetary Board may summarily and
7
Rollo, pp. 28-29. without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from doing
8
G.R. No. 134617, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 326, 331. business in the Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit
9
No. L-70054, July 8, 1986, 142 SCRA 523. Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking institution.
10
SECTION 29. Appointment of Conservator.—Whenever, on For a quasi-bank, any person of recognized competence in
the basis of a report submitted by the appropriate supervising or banking or finance may be designed as receiver.
examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or The receiver shall immediately gather and take charge of all the
a quasi-bank is in a state of continuing inability or assets and liabilities of the institution, administer the same for
unwillingness to maintain a condition of liquidity deemed the benefit of its creditors, and exercise the general powers of a
adequate to protect the interest of depositors and creditors, the receiver under the Revised Rules of Court but shall not, with
Monetary Board may appoint a conservator with such powers the exception of administrative expenditures, pay or commit
as the Monetary Board shall deem necessary to take charge of any act that will involve the transfer or disposition of any asset
the assets, liabilities, and the management thereof, reorganize of the institution: Provided, That the receiver may deposit or
the management, collect all monies and debts due said place the funds of the institution in nonspeculative investments.
institution, and exercise all powers necessary to restore its The receiver shall determine as soon as possible, but not later
viability. The conservator shall report and be responsible to the than ninety (90) days from take over, whether the institution
Monetary Board and shall have the power to overrule or revoke may be rehabilitated or otherwise placed in such a condition so
the actions of the previous management and board of directors that it may be permitted to resume business with safety to its
of the bank or quasi-bank. depositors and creditors and the general public: Provided, That
The conservator should be competent and knowledgeable in any determination for the resumption of business of the
bank operations and management. institution shall be subject to prior approval of the Monetary
The conservatorship shall not exceed one (1) year. Board.
The conservator shall receive remuneration to be fixed by the If the receiver determines that the institution cannot be
Monetary Board in an amount not to exceed two-thirds (2/3) of rehabilitated or permitted to resume business in accordance
the salary of the president of the institution in one (1) year, with the next preceding paragraph, the Monetary Board shall
payable in twelve (12) equal monthly payments: Provided, notify in writing the board of directors of its findings and direct
That, if at any time within one-year period, the conservatorship the receiver to proceed with the liquidation of the institution.
is terminated on the ground that the institution can operate on The receiver shall:
its own, the conservator shall receive the balance of the 1. file ex parte with the proper regional trial court, and without
remuneration which he would have received up to the end of the requirement of prior notice or any other action, a petition for
year; but if the conservatorship is terminated on other grounds, assistance in the liquidation of the institution pursuant to a
the conservator shall not be entitled to such remaining balance. liquidation plan adopted by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
The Monetary Board may appoint a conservator connected with Corporation for general application to all closed banks. In case
the Bangko Sentral, in which case he shall not be entitled to of quasi-banks, the liquidation plan shall be adopted by the
receive any remuneration or emolument from the Bangko Monetary Board. Upon acquiring jurisdiction, the court shall,
Sentral during the conservatorship. The expenses attendant to upon motion by the receiver after due notice, adjudicate
the conservatorship shall be borne by the bank or quasi-bank disputed claims against the institution, assist the enforcement of
concerned. individual liabilities of the stockholders, directors and officers,
The Monetary Board shall terminate the conservatorship when and decide on other issues as may be material to implement the
it is satisfied that the institution can continue to operate on its liquidation plan adopted. The receiver shall pay the cost of the
own and the conservatorship is no longer necessary. The proceedings from the assets of the institution.
conservatorship shall likewise be terminated should the 2. convert the assets of the institutions to money, dispose of the
Monetary Board, on the basis of the report of the conservator or same to creditors and other parties, for the purpose of paying
of its own findings, determine that the continuance in business the debts of such institution in accordance with the rules on
of the institution would involve probable loss to its depositors concurrence and preference of credit under the Civil Code of
or creditors, in which case the provisions of Section 30 shall the Philippines and he may, in the name of the institution, and
apply. with the assistance of counsel as he may retain, institute such
actions as may be necessary to collect and recover accounts and
assets of, or defend any action against, the institution. The assets designation of a conservator is not a precondition to the
of an institution under receivership or liquidation shall be designation of a receiver.
11
deemed in custodia legis in the hands of the receiver and shall, G.R. No. 76118, March 30, 1993, 220 SCRA 536.
12
from the moment the institution was placed under such G.R. No. 150886, February 16, 2007, 516 SCRA 154, 160.
13
receivership or liquidation, be exempt from any order of Philippine Veterans Bank Employees Union-NUBE v.
garnishment, levy, attachment, or execution. Philippine Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 67125, August 24, 1990,
The actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or 189 SCRA 14, 28.
14
under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and executory, and Marquez v. Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC
may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition Br. 58, Lucena City, G.R. No. 141849, February 13, 2007, 515
for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess SCRA 577, 594.
15
of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to Selegna Management and Development Corporation v.
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition United Coconut Planters Bank, G.R. No. 165662, May 3, 2006,
for certiorari may only be filed by the stockholders of record 489 SCRA 125, 145.
16
representing the majority of the capital stock within ten (10) Nisce v. Equitable PCI Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 167434,
days from receipt by the board of directors of the institution of February 19, 2007, 516 SCRA 231, 253.
17
the order directing receivership, liquidation or conservatorship. Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc., supra note 12, at 252.
18
The designation of a conservator under Section 29 of this Act Republic v. Caguioa, G.R. No. 168584, October 15, 2007,
or the appointment of a receiver under this section shall be 536 SCRA 193, 220.
vested exclusively with the Monetary Board. Furthermore, the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 191424 August 7, 2013
ALFEO D. VIVAS, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EUROCREDIT

COMMUNITY BANK, PETITIONER,
vs.
THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS AND THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a status quo ante order or writ of preliminary injunction
ordering the respondents to desist from closing EuroCredit Community Bank, Incorporated (ECBI) and from pursuing the
receivership thereof. The petition likewise prays that the management and operation of ECBI be restored to its Board of
Directors (BOD) and its officers.
The Facts
The Rural Bank of Faire, Incorporated (RBFI) was a duly registered rural banking institution with principal office in Centro
Sur, Sto. Niño, Cagayan. Record shows that the corporate life of RBFI expired on May 31, 2005.1 Notwithstanding,
petitioner Alfeo D. Vivas (Vivas) and his principals acquired the controlling interest in RBFI sometime in January 2006. At
the initiative of Vivas and the new management team, an internal audit was conducted on RBFI and results thereof
highlighted the dismal operation of the rural bank. In view of those findings, certain measures calculated to revitalize the
bank were allegedly introduced.2 On December 8, 2006, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) issued the Certificate of
Authority extending the corporate life of RBFI for another fifty (50) years. The BSP also approved the change of its
corporate name to EuroCredit Community Bank, Incorporated, as well as the increase in the number of the members of its
BOD, from five (5) to eleven (11).3
Pursuant to Section 28 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7653, otherwise known as The New Central Bank Act, the Integrated
Supervision Department II (ISD II) of the BSP conducted a general examination on ECBI with the cut-off date of December
31, 2007. Shortly after the completion of the general examination, an exit conference was held on March 27, 2008 at the
BSP during which the BSP officials and examiners apprised Vivas, the Chairman and President of ECBI, as well as the
other bank officers and members of its BOD, of the advance findings noted during the said examination. The ECBI
submitted its comments on BSP’s consolidated findings and risk asset classification through a letter, dated April 8, 2008.4
Sometime in April 2008, the examiners from the Department of Loans and Credit of the BSP arrived at the ECBI and
cancelled the rediscounting line of the bank. Vivas appealed the cancellation to BSP.5 Thereafter, the Monetary Board (MB)
issued Resolution No. 1255, dated September 25, 2008, placing ECBI under Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) framework
because of the following serious findings and supervisory concerns noted during the general examination: 1] negative capital
of ?14.674 million and capital adequacy ratio of negative 18.42%; 2] CAMEL (Capital Asset Management Earnings
Liquidity) composite rating of "2" with a Management component rating of "1"; and 3] serious supervisory concerns
particularly on activities deemed unsafe or unsound.6 Vivas claimed that the BSP took the above courses of action due to
the joint influence exerted by a certain hostile shareholder and a former BSP examiner.7
Through its letter, dated September 30, 2008, the BSP furnished ECBI with a copy of the Report of Examination (ROE) as
of December 31, 2007. In addition, the BSP directed the bank’s BOD and senior management to: 1] infuse fresh capital of
?22.643 million; 2] book the amount of ?28.563 million representing unbooked valuation reserves on classified loans and
other risks assets on or before October 31, 2008; and 3] take appropriate action necessary to address the
violations/exceptions noted in the examination.8
Vivas moved for a reconsideration of Resolution No. 1255 on the grounds of non-observance of due process and
arbitrariness. The ISD II, on several instances, had invited the BOD of ECBI to discuss matters pertaining to the placement
of the bank under PCA framework and other supervisory concerns before making the appropriate recommendations to the
MB. The proposed meeting, however, did not materialize due to postponements sought by Vivas.9
In its letter, dated February 20, 2009, the BSP directed ECBI to explain why it transferred the majority shares of RBFI
without securing the prior approval of the MB in apparent violation of Subsection X126.2 of the Manual of Regulation for
Banks (MORB).10 Still in another letter,11 dated March 31, 2009, the ISD II required ECBI to explain why it did not obtain
the prior approval of the BSP anent the establishment and operation of the bank’s sub-offices.
Also, the scheduled March 31, 2009 general examination of the books, records and general condition of ECBI with the cut-
off date of December 31, 2008, did not push through. According to Vivas, ECBI asked for the deferment of the examination
pending resolution of its appeal before the MB. Vivas believed that he was being treated unfairly because the letter of
authority to examine allegedly contained a clause which pertained to the Anti-Money Laundering Law and the Bank Secrecy
Act.12
The MB, on the other hand, posited that ECBI unjustly refused to allow the BSP examiners from examining and inspecting
its books and records, in violation of Sections 25 and 34 of R.A. No. 7653. In its letter, 13 dated May 8, 2009, the BSP
informed ECBI that it was already due for another annual examination and that the pendency of its appeal before the MB
would not prevent the BSP from conducting another one as mandated by Section 28 of R.A. No. 7653.
In view of ECBI’s refusal to comply with the required examination, the MB issued Resolution No. 726,14 dated May 14,
2009, imposing monetary penalty/fine on ECBI, and referred the matter to the Office of the Special Investigation (OSI) for
the filing of appropriate legal action. The BSP also wrote a letter,15 dated May 26, 2009, advising ECBI to comply with MB
Resolution No. 771, which essentially required the bank to follow its directives. On May 28, 2009, the ISD II reiterated its
demand upon the ECBI BOD to allow the BSP examiners to conduct a general examination on June 3, 2009.16
In its June 2, 2009 Letter-Reply,17 ECBI asked for another deferment of the examination due to the pendency of certain
unresolved issues subject of its appeal before the MB, and because Vivas was then out of the country. The ISD II denied
ECBI’s request and ordered the general examination to proceed as previously scheduled.18
Thereafter, the MB issued Resolution No. 823,19 dated June 4, 2009, approving the issuance of a cease and desist order
against ECBI, which enjoined it from pursuing certain acts and transactions that were considered unsafe or unsound banking
practices, and from doing such other acts or transactions constituting fraud or might result in the dissipation of its assets.
On June 10, 2009, the OSI filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) a complaint for Estafa Through Falsification of
Commercial Documents against certain officials and employees of ECBI. Meanwhile, the MB issued Resolution No.
1164,20 dated August 13, 2009, denying the appeal of ECBI from Resolution No. 1255 which placed it under PCA
framework. On November 18, 2009, the general examination of the books and records of ECBI with the cut-off date of
September 30, 2009, was commenced and ended in December 2009. Later, the BSP officials and examiners met with the
representatives of ECBI, including Vivas, and discussed their findings.21 On December 7, 2009, the ISD II reminded ECBI
of the non-submission of its financial audit reports for the years 2007 and 2008 with a warning that failure to submit those
reports and the written explanation for such omission shall result in the imposition of a monetary penalty.22 In a letter, dated
February 1, 2010, the ISD II informed ECBI of MB Resolution No. 1548 which denied its request for reconsideration of
Resolution No. 726.
On March 4, 2010, the MB issued Resolution No. 27623 placing ECBI under receivership in accordance with the
recommendation of the ISD II which reads:
On the basis of the examination findings as of 30 September 2009 as reported by the Integrated Supervision Department
(ISD) II, in its memorandum dated 17 February 2010, which findings showed that the Eurocredit Community Bank, Inc. –
a Rural Bank (Eurocredit Bank) (a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the ordinary course of business; (b)
has insufficient realizable assets to meet liabilities; (c) cannot continue in business without involving probable losses to its
depositors and creditors; and (d) has willfully violated a cease and desist order of the Monetary Board for acts or transactions
which are considered unsafe and unsound banking practices and other acts or transactions constituting fraud or dissipation
of the assets of the institution, and considering the failure of the Board of Directors/management of Eurocredit Bank to
restore the bank’s financial health and viability despite considerable time given to address the bank’s financial problems,
and that the bank had been accorded due process, the Board, in accordance with Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (The
New Central Bank Act), approved the recommendation of ISD II as follows:
To prohibit the Eurocredit Bank from doing business in the Philippines and to place its assets and affairs under receivership;
and
To designate the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver of the bank.
Assailing MB Resolution No. 276, Vivas filed this petition for prohibition before this Court, ascribing grave abuse of
discretion to the MB for prohibiting ECBI from continuing its banking business and for placing it under receivership. The
petitioner presents the following
ARGUMENTS:
(a)
It is grave abuse of discretion amounting to loss of jurisdiction to apply the general law embodied in Section 30 of the New
Central Bank Act as opposed to the specific law embodied in Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Banks Act of 1992.
(b)
Even if it assumed that Section 30 of the New Central Bank Act is applicable, it is still the gravest abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction to execute the law with manifest arbitrariness, abuse of discretion, and bad faith,
violation of constitutional rights and to further execute a mandate well in excess of its parameters.
(c)
The power delegated in favor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas to place rural banks under receiverships is unconstitutional
for being a diminution or invasion of the powers of the Supreme Court, in violation of Section 2, Article VIII of the
Philippine Constitution.24
Vivas submits that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion when they erroneously applied Section 30 of R.A.
No. 7653, instead of Sections 11 and 14 of the Rural Bank Act of 1992 or R.A. No. 7353. He argues that despite the
deficiencies, inadequacies and oversights in the conduct of the affairs of ECBI, it has not committed any financial fraud
and, hence, its placement under receivership was unwarranted and improper. He posits that, instead, the BSP should have
taken over the management of ECBI and extended loans to the financially distrained bank pursuant to Sections 11 and 14
of R.A. No. 7353 because the BSP’s power is limited only to supervision and management take-over of banks.
He contends that the implementation of the questioned resolution was tainted with arbitrariness and bad faith, stressing that
ECBI was placed under receivership without due and prior hearing in violation of his and the bank’s right to due process.
He adds that respondent PDIC actually closed ECBI even in the absence of any directive to this effect. Lastly, Vivas assails
the constitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 claiming that said provision vested upon the BSP the unbridled power
to close and place under receivership a hapless rural bank instead of aiding its financial needs. He is of the view that such
power goes way beyond its constitutional limitation and has transformed the BSP to a sovereign in its own "kingdom of
banks."25
The Court’s Ruling
The petition must fail.
Vivas Availed of the Wrong Remedy
To begin with, Vivas availed of the wrong remedy. The MB issued Resolution No. 276, dated March 4, 2010, in the exercise
of its power under R.A. No. 7653. Under Section 30 thereof, any act of the MB placing a bank under conservatorship,
receivership or liquidation may not be restrained or set aside except on a petition for certiorari. Pertinent portions of R.A.
7653 read:
Section 30. –
x x x x.
The actions of the Monetary Board taken under this section or under Section 29 of this Act shall be final and executory, and
may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in
excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition for
certiorari may only be filed by the stockholders of record representing the majority of the capital stock within ten (10) days
from receipt by the board of directors of the institution of the order directing receivership, liquidation or conservatorship.
x x x x. [Emphases supplied]
Prohibition is already unavailing
Granting that a petition for prohibition is allowed, it is already an ineffective remedy under the circumstances obtaining.
Prohibition or a "writ of prohibition" is that process by which a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers,
or persons from usurping or exercising a jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law, and confines them to
the exercise of those powers legally conferred. Its office is to restrain subordinate courts, tribunals or persons from exercising
jurisdiction over matters not within its cognizance or exceeding its jurisdiction in matters of which it has cognizance. 26 In
our jurisdiction, the rule on prohibition is enshrined in Section 2, Rule 65 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, to wit:
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition - When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether
exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court,
alleging the facts with certainty and praying that the judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further
proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as the law and justice
require.
x x x x.
Indeed, prohibition is a preventive remedy seeking that a judgment be rendered which would direct the defendant to desist
from continuing with the commission of an act perceived to be illegal.27 As a rule, the proper function of a writ of prohibition
is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not intended to provide a remedy for acts already
accomplished.28
Though couched in imprecise terms, this petition for prohibition apparently seeks to prevent the acts of closing of ECBI and
placing it under receivership. Resolution No. 276, however, had already been issued by the MB and the closure of ECBI
and its placement under receivership by the PDIC were already accomplished. Apparently, the remedy of prohibition is no
longer appropriate. Settled is the rule that prohibition does not lie to restrain an act that is already a fait accompli. 29
The Petition Should Have Been Filed in the CA
Even if treated as a petition for certiorari, the petition should have been filed with the CA. Section 4 of Rule 65 reads:
Section 4. When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is
required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a corporation,
board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme
Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, unless
otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
[Emphases supplied]
That the MB is a quasi-judicial agency was already settled and reiterated in the case of Bank of Commerce v. Planters
Development Bank And Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas.30
Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts
Even in the absence of such provision, the petition is also dismissible because it simply ignored the doctrine of hierarchy of
courts. True, the Court, the CA and the RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition
and mandamus. The concurrence of jurisdiction, however, does not grant the party seeking any of the extraordinary writs
the absolute freedom to file a petition in any court of his choice. The petitioner has not advanced any special or important
reason which would allow a direct resort to this Court. Under the Rules of Court, a party may directly appeal to this Court
only on pure questions of law.31 In the case at bench, there are certainly factual issues as Vivas is questioning the findings
of the investigating team.
Strict observance of the policy of judicial hierarchy demands that where the issuance of the extraordinary writs is also within
the competence of the CA or the RTC, the special action for the obtainment of such writ must be presented to either court.
As a rule, the Court will not entertain direct resort to it unless the redress desired cannot be obtained in the appropriate lower
courts; or where exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and with serious implications,
justify the availment of the extraordinary remedy of writ of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus calling for the exercise of
its primary jurisdiction.32 The judicial policy must be observed to prevent an imposition on the precious time and attention
of the Court.
The MB Committed No Grave Abuse of Discretion
In any event, no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the MB for the issuance of the assailed Resolution No. 276.
Vivas insists that the circumstances of the case warrant the application of Section 11 of R.A. No. 7353, which provides:
Sec. 11. The power to supervise the operation of any rural bank by the Monetary Board as herein indicated shall consist in
placing limits to the maximum credit allowed to any individual borrower; in prescribing the interest rate, in determining the
loan period and loan procedures, in indicating the manner in which technical assistance shall be extended to rural banks, in
imposing a uniform accounting system and manner of keeping the accounts and records of rural banks; in instituting periodic
surveys of loan and lending procedures, audits, test-check of cash and other transactions of the rural banks; in conducting
training courses for personnel of rural banks; and, in general, in supervising the business operations of the rural banks.
The Central Bank shall have the power to enforce the laws, orders, instructions, rules and regulations promulgated by the
Monetary Board, applicable to rural banks; to require rural banks, their directors, officers and agents to conduct and manage
the affairs of the rural banks in a lawful and orderly manner; and, upon proof that the rural bank or its Board of Directors,
or officers are conducting and managing the affairs of the bank in a manner contrary to laws, orders, instructions, rules and
regulations promulgated by the Monetary Board or in a manner substantially prejudicial to the interest of the Government,
depositors or creditors, to take over the management of such bank when specifically authorized to do so by the Monetary
Board after due hearing process until a new board of directors and officers are elected and qualified without prejudice to the
prosecution of the persons responsible for such violations under the provisions of Sections 32, 33 and 34 of Republic Act
No. 265, as amended.
x x x x.
The thrust of Vivas’ argument is that ECBI did not commit any financial fraud and, hence, its placement under receivership
was unwarranted and improper. He asserts that, instead, the BSP should have taken over the management of ECBI and
extended loans to the financially distrained bank pursuant to Sections 11 and 14 of R.A. No. 7353 because the BSP’s power
is limited only to supervision and management take-over of banks, and not receivership.
Vivas argues that implementation of the questioned resolution was tainted with arbitrariness and bad faith, stressing that
ECBI was placed under receivership without due and prior hearing, invoking Section 11 of R.A. No. 7353 which states that
the BSP may take over the management of a rural bank after due hearing.33 He adds that because R.A. No. 7353 is a special
law, the same should prevail over R.A. No. 7653 which is a general law.
The Court has taken this into account, but it appears from all over the records that ECBI was given every opportunity to be
heard and improve on its financial standing. The records disclose that BSP officials and examiners met with the
representatives of ECBI, including Vivas, and discussed their findings. 34 There were also reminders that ECBI submit its
financial audit reports for the years 2007 and 2008 with a warning that failure to submit them and a written explanation of
such omission shall result in the imposition of a monetary penalty.35 More importantly, ECBI was heard on its motion for
reconsideration. For failure of ECBI to comply, the MB came out with Resolution No. 1548 denying its request for
reconsideration of Resolution No. 726. Having been heard on its motion for reconsideration, ECBI cannot claim that it was
deprived of its right under the Rural Bank Act.
Close Now, Hear Later
At any rate, if circumstances warrant it, the MB may forbid a bank from doing business and place it under receivership
without prior notice and hearing. Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 provides, viz:
Sec. 30. Proceedings in Receivership and Liquidation. – Whenever, upon report of the head of the supervising or examining
department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or quasi-bank:
(a) is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due in the ordinary course of business: Provided, That this shall
not include inability to pay caused by extraordinary demands induced by financial panic in the banking community;
(b) has insufficient realizable assets, as determined by the Bangko Sentral, to meet its liabilities; or
(c) cannot continue in business without involving probable losses to its depositors or creditors; or
(d) has wilfully violated a cease and desist order under Section 37 that has become final, involving acts or
transactions which amount to fraud or a dissipation of the assets of the institution; in which cases, the Monetary
Board may summarily and without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from doing business in the
Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking institution.
[Emphases supplied.]
x x x x.
Accordingly, there is no conflict which would call for the application of the doctrine that a special law should prevail over
a general law. It must be emphasized that R.A .No. 7653 is a later law and under said act, the power of the MB over banks,
including rural banks, was increased and expanded. The Court, in several cases, upheld the power of the MB to take over
banks without need for prior hearing. It is not necessary inasmuch as the law entrusts to the MB the appreciation and
determination of whether any or all of the statutory grounds for the closure and receivership of the erring bank are present.
The MB, under R.A. No. 7653, has been invested with more power of closure and placement of a bank under receivership
for insolvency or illiquidity, or because the bank’s continuance in business would probably result in the loss to depositors
or creditors. In the case of Bangko Sentral Ng Pilipinas Monetary Board v. Hon. Antonio-Valenzuela,36 the Court reiterated
the doctrine of "close now, hear later," stating that it was justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest.
Thus:
The "close now, hear later" doctrine has already been justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. Swift
action is called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire straits. Unless adequate and determined efforts
are taken by the government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public faith in the banking system is certain to
deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy itself, not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors,
creditors, and stockholders, who all deserve the protection of the government.37 [Emphasis supplied]
In Rural Bank of Buhi, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,38 the Court also wrote that
x x x due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent
to the closure. One can just imagine the dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank runs would be the order of the day,
resulting in panic and hysteria. In the process, fortunes may be wiped out and disillusionment will run the gamut of the
entire banking community.39
The doctrine is founded on practical and legal considerations to obviate unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets and as
a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public. 40 Swift, adequate
and determined actions must be taken against financially distressed and mismanaged banks by government agencies lest the
public faith in the banking system deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy.
Accordingly, the MB can immediately implement its resolution prohibiting a banking institution to do business in the
Philippines and, thereafter, appoint the PDIC as receiver. The procedure for the involuntary closure of a bank is summary
and expeditious in nature. Such action of the MB shall be final and executory, but may be later subjected to a judicial
scrutiny via a petition for certiorari to be filed by the stockholders of record of the bank representing a majority of the capital
stock. Obviously, this procedure is designed to protect the interest of all concerned, that is, the depositors, creditors and
stockholders, the bank itself and the general public. The protection afforded public interest warrants the exercise of a
summary closure.
In the case at bench, the ISD II submitted its memorandum, dated February 17, 2010, containing the findings noted during
the general examination conducted on ECBI with the cut-off date of September 30, 2009. The memorandum underscored
the inability of ECBI to pay its liabilities as they would fall due in the usual course of its business, its liabilities being in
excess of the assets held. Also, it was noted that ECBI’s continued banking operation would most probably result in the
incurrence of additional losses to the prejudice of its depositors and creditors. On top of these, it was found that ECBI had
willfully violated the cease-and-desist order of the MB issued in its June 24, 2009 Resolution, and had disregarded the BSP
rules and directives. For said reasons, the MB was forced to issue the assailed Resolution No. 276 placing ECBI under
receivership. In addition, the MB stressed that it accorded ECBI ample time and opportunity to address its monetary problem
and to restore and improve its financial health and viability but it failed to do so.
In light of the circumstances obtaining in this case, the application of the corrective measures enunciated in Section 30 of
R.A. No. 7653 was proper and justified. Management take-over under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7353 was no longer feasible
considering the financial quagmire that engulfed ECBI showing serious conditions of insolvency and illiquidity. Besides,
placing ECBI under receivership would effectively put a stop to the further draining of its assets.
No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power
Lastly, the petitioner challenges the constitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653, as the legislature granted the MB a
broad and unrestrained power to close and place a financially troubled bank under receivership. He claims that the said
provision was an undue delegation of legislative power. The contention deserves scant consideration.
Preliminarily, Vivas’ attempt to assail the constitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 constitutes collateral attack on
the said provision of law. Nothing is more settled than the rule that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be collaterally
attacked as constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally.41 A collateral attack on a presumably valid
law is not permissible. Unless a law or rule is annulled in a direct proceeding, the legal presumption of its validity stands.42
Be that as it may, there is no violation of the non-delegation of legislative power.1âwphi1 The rationale for the constitutional
proscription is that "legislative discretion as to the substantive contents of the law cannot be delegated. What can be
delegated is the discretion to determine how the law may be enforced, not what the law shall be. The ascertainment of the
latter subject is a prerogative of the legislature. This prerogative cannot be abdicated or surrendered by the legislature to the
delegate."43
"There are two accepted tests to determine whether or not there is a valid delegation of legislative power, viz, the
completeness test and the sufficient standard test. Under the first test, the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions
when it leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate the only thing he will have to do is enforce it. Under
the sufficient standard test, there must be adequate guidelines or stations in the law to map out the boundaries of the
delegate's authority and prevent the delegation from running riot. Both tests are intended to prevent a total transference of
legislative authority to the delegate, who is not allowed to step into the shoes of the legislature and exercise a power
essentially legislative."44
In this case, under the two tests, there was no undue delegation of legislative authority in the issuance of R.A. No. 7653. To
address the growing concerns in the banking industry, the legislature has sufficiently empowered the MB to effectively
monitor and supervise banks and financial institutions and, if circumstances warrant, to forbid them to do business, to take
over their management or to place them under receivership. The legislature has clearly spelled out the reasonable parameters
of the power entrusted to the MB and assigned to it only the manner of enforcing said power. In other words, the MB was
given a wide discretion and latitude only as to how the law should be implemented in order to attain its objective of
protecting the interest of the public, the banking industry and the economy.
WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
15
Footnotes Id. at 267-268.
1 16
Rollo, p. 155. Id. at 271.
2 17
Id. at 8-11. Id. at 272.
3 18
Id. at 115. Id. at 273.
4 19
Id. at 116. Id. at 275-277.
5 20
Id. at 12. Id. at 282.
6 21
Id. at 181. Id. at 125.
7 22
Id. at 13. Id. at 283.
8 23
Id. at 117-118. Id. at 50.
9 24
Id. at 236-241. Id. at 17-18.
10 25
Id. at 119-120. Id. at 37.
11 26
Id. at 262. City Engineer of Baguio v. Baniqued, G.R. No. 150270,
12
Id. at 14. November 26, 2008, 57 SCRA 617, 625.
13 27
Id. at 263. Guerrero v. Domingo, G.R. No. 156142, March 23, 2011, 646
14
Id. at 265. SCRA 175, 180.
28
Cabanero v. Torres, 61 Phil, 522 (1935); Agustin v. De la manage the affairs of the rural banks in a lawful and orderly
Fuente, 84 Phil 525 (1949); Navarro v. Lardizabal, 134 Phil. manner, and, upon proof that the rural bank of its Board of
331 (1968); Heirs of Eugenia V. Roxas, Inc. v. Intermediate Directors, or officers are conducting and managing the affairs
Appellate Court, 255 Phil 558 (1989). of the banking in a manner contrary to the laws, orders,
29
Montes v. Court of Appeals, 523 Phil 98, 110 (2006). instructions, rules and regulations promulgated by the Monetary
30
G.R. Nos. 154470-71, September 24, 2012 , 681 SCRA 521, Board or in a manner substantially prejudicial in the interest of
555 (citing United Coconut Planters Bank v. E. Ganzon, Inc., the Government, depositors or creditors, to take over the
G.R. No. 168859, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 321, 338-341). management of such bank when specifically authorized to do so
31
Philippine Veterans Bank v. Benjamin Monillas, 573 Phil by the Monetary Board after due hearing process until a new
298, 315 (2008). board of directors and officers are elected and qualified without
32
Springfield Development Corp., Inc. v. Hon. Presiding Judge prejudice to the prosecution of the persons for such violations
of RTC, Branch 40., Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, under the provisions of Sections 32, 33 and 34 of Republic Act
543 Phil. 298, 315 (2007). No. 265, as amended.
33 34
Section 11. The power to supervise the operation of any rural Rollo, p. 125.
35
bank by the Monetary Board as herein indicated shall consists Id. at 283.
36
in placing limits to the maximum credit allowed to any G.R. No. 184778, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 698.
37
individual borrower; in prescribing the interest rate; in Id. at 721.
38
determining the loan period and loan procedures; in indicating 245 Phil. 263 (1988).
39
the manner in which technical assistance shall be extended to Id. at 278.
40
rural banks; in imposing a uniform accounting system and Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board v. Antonio-
manner of keeping the accounts and records of rural banks; in Valenzuela, G.R. No. 184778, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 698.
41
instituting periodic surveys of loan and lending procedures, Gutierrez v. Department of Budget and Management, G.R.
audits, test-check of cash and other transactions of the rural No. 153266, March 18, 2010, 616 SCRA 1, 25.
42
banks; and, in general in supervising the business operations of Dasmariñas Water District v. Leonardo-De Castro, G.R. No.
the rural banks. 175550, September 17, 2008, 565 SCRA 624, 637.
43
The Central bank shall have the power to enforce the laws, Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Philippine Overseas
orders, instructions, rules and regulations promulgated by the Employment Administration, 248 Phil 762, 771 (1998).
44
Monetary Board applicable to rural banks; to require rural Id.
banks, their directors, officers and agents to conduct and

Mercantile Law Cases 2

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mercantile Law Cases 2

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 109563 July 9, 1996

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner,

The facts are as follows:

The promissory note contained the following stipulation:3

Payment of this note shall be as follows:

* THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FIVE DAYS * AFTER DATE

(k) INCREASE OF INTEREST RATE:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

3. The compulsory counterclaim of the defendants is also dismissed;

5. Plaintiff's claim for damages is, likewise, dismissed; and

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 184778 October 2, 2009

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD and CHUCHI FONACIER, Petitioners,

The Ruling of the RTC

The dispositive portion of the RTC’s order reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court rules as follows:

The Ruling of the CA

Now we resolve the main petition.

Grounds in Support of Petition

II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT

A. THE EXCEPTIONS CITED BY PETITIONER JUSTIFIED RESORT TO PETITION FOR

B. RESPONDENT BANKS’ ACT OF RESORTING IMMEDIATELY TO THE COURT WAS

The petition is meritorious.

In Lim v. Court of Appeals it was stated:

These requirements are absent in the present case.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 191424 August 7, 2013

ALFEO D. VIVAS, ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EUROCREDIT

To designate the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver of the bank.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition must fail.

Vivas Availed of the Wrong Remedy

Prohibition is already unavailing

The Petition Should Have Been Filed in the CA

Doctrine of Hierarchy of Courts

The MB Committed No Grave Abuse of Discretion

Close Now, Hear Later

No Undue Delegation of Legislative Power

WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is DENIED.

Potrebbero piacerti anche