Banking Laws
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK, V. BANGKO SENTRAL NG
PILIPINAS AND THE MONETARY BOARD
G.R. No. 200678. June 04, 2018
LEONEN, J.
Prepared by: John Kayle Borja
Fallo
:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DISMISSED on the ground of petitioner's lack of capacity to sue.
Facts:
In 1991, this Court promulgated Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board and Central
Bank of the Philippines, which declared void the Monetary Board's order for closure and receivership of (Banco
Filipino). This Court also directed the CPB and the Monetary Board to reorganize Banco Filipino and to allow it to
resume business under the comptrollership of both the CBP and the Monetary Board.
Banco Filipino subsequently filed several Complaints before the Regional Trial Court, among them a claim
for damages in the total amount of P18B. In 1993, Congress passed Republic Act No. 7653, providing for the
establishment and organization of Bangko Sentral as the new monetary authority.
Subsequently, pursuant to this Court's 1991 Banco Filipino Decision, the Monetary Board issued Resolution
No. 427, which allowed Banco Filipino to resume its business.
Petitioner was placed under receivership on March 17, 2011, and thus, petitioner’s Executive Committee
would have had no authority to sign for or on behalf of petitioner absent the authority of its receiver, Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation. They also point out that both the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation Charter
and Republic Act No. 7653 categorically state that the authority to file suits or retain counsels for closed banks is
vested in the receiver. Thus, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping signed by petitioner's
Executive Committee has no legal effect.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner Banco Filipino, as a closed bank under receivership, could file this Petition for
Review without joining its statutory receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, as a party to the case.
Ruling: A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation. Under Republic Act No. 7653, when the Monetary Board finds a bank insolvent, it 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.“
The relationship between the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation and a closed bank is fiduciary in
nature. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 directs the receiver of a closed bank to "immediately gather and take
charge of all the assets and liabilities of the institution" and "administer the same for the benefit of its creditors." The
law likewise grants the receiver "the general powers of a receiver under the Revised Rules of Court." Under Rule 59,
Section 6 of the Rules of Court, "a receiver shall have the power to bring and defend, in such capacity, actions in his
[or her] own name." Thus, Republic Act No. 7653 provides that the receiver shall also "in the name of the institution,
and with the assistance of counsel as [it] may retain, institute such actions as may be necessary to collect and
recover accounts and assets of, or defend any action against, the institution." Considering that the receiver has the
power to take charge of all the assets of the closed bank and to institute for or defend any action against it, only the
receiver, in its fiduciary capacity, may sue and be sued on behalf of the closed bank.
When petitioner was placed under receivership, the powers of its Board of Directors and its officers were
suspended. Thus, its Board of Directors could not have validly authorized its Executive Vice Presidents to file the suit
on its behalf. The Petition, not having been properly verified, is considered an unsigned pleading. 124 124 A defect in
the certification of non-forum shopping is likewise fatal to petitioner's cause. 125 125 Considering that the Petition
was led by signatories who were not validly authorized to do so, the Petition does not produce any legal effect. Being
an unauthorized pleading, this Court never validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. The Petition, therefore, must
be dismissed
Critique:
