Banco Filipino v. Bangko Sentral
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute between Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and its Monetary Board. The underlying issue stems from Banco Filipino's request for financial assistance from the BSP in 2002, following heavy withdrawals. The BSP, in turn, required Banco Filipino to comply with certain conditions under Republic Act No. 7653 and to submit a rehabilitation plan approved by the BSP before emergency loans could be granted. Banco Filipino submitted various business plans and proposals, including a request for a P25,000,000,000.00 income enhancement loan. The negotiations led to an agreement on an Alternative Business Plan, subject to the Monetary Board's approval, which included a condition that Banco Filipino withdraw all pending cases against the BSP and its officials. Procedural History: Banco Filipino filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, assailing the BSP and Monetary Board's alleged arbitrary and illegal acts in coercing the withdrawal of its cases as a condition for financial assistance. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order. Subsequently, the BSP and Monetary Board filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction. The RTC denied the BSP's Motion to Dismiss. The BSP and Monetary Board filed further petitions with the CA, challenging the RTC's orders. The CA eventually granted the BSP's amended petition, annulling the RTC's order and dismissing Banco Filipino's case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that special civil actions against quasi-judicial agencies are cognizable only by the CA. The CA denied Banco Filipino's motion for reconsideration. This led to the present Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Banco Filipino filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that dismissed its case for lack of jurisdiction. Banco Filipino argues that it had the authority to file the petition, even while under receivership, citing a prior Court of Appeals decision that declared its closure illegal, and asserting a conflict of interest in requiring PDIC's authorization given the Monetary Board's control over PDIC. It also contends that the trial court had jurisdiction based on precedent and that the respondents submitted to the trial court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, however, must first resolve whether Banco Filipino, as a closed bank under receivership, could file the petition without its receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), and whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the petition against the quasi-judicial agency.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Banco Filipino, as a closed bank under receivership, could file the Petition for Review without joining its statutory receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Whether trial courts have jurisdiction to take cognizance of a petition for certiorari against acts and omissions of the Monetary Board. Whether respondents Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Monetary Board should have filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss before filing their petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over respondents Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the Monetary Board.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED on the ground of petitioner's lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the case before the Regional Trial Court since the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioner against respondents. Even assuming the Petition did not suffer from procedural infirmities, it must still be denied for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of petitioner's capacity to sue: The Court held that a bank ordered closed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Consequently, the closed bank can only sue and be sued through its receiver, the PDIC. Any action filed by the closed bank without its receiver may be dismissed. The Court found that petitioner Banco Filipino was under receivership at the time it filed the Petition for Review, and it failed to join its receiver, the PDIC, as a party. The Court also noted that the powers of Banco Filipino's Board of Directors and officers were suspended upon its placement under receivership, rendering the authorization for its Executive Vice Presidents to file the suit invalid. Therefore, the Petition, not having been properly verified, was considered an unsigned pleading, and the Court never validly acquired jurisdiction over the case. On the issue of trial court jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against quasi-judicial agencies: The Court reiterated the established rule that petitions for certiorari against a quasi-judicial agency are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise provided by law or the Rules of Court. The Bangko Sentral's Monetary Board was identified as a quasi-judicial agency. Therefore, the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the Petition for Certiorari filed by Banco Filipino against Bangko Sentral and the Monetary Board. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the case on this ground. On the issue of whether a motion for reconsideration was necessary before filing a petition for certiorari: The Court clarified that while the Revised Rules of Court may appear to allow a direct filing of a petition for certiorari of an interlocutory order without a motion for reconsideration, the settled rule is that a motion for reconsideration is a sine qua non condition for the filing of a petition for certiorari. However, an exception exists where the court a quo had no jurisdiction. In this case, the respondents correctly asserted the trial court's lack of jurisdiction before the Court of Appeals, thus excusing them from filing the requisite motion for reconsideration. On the issue of whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over respondents: The Court found that the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over Bangko Sentral and the Monetary Board. The service of summons to a staff member of the Office of the Governor was deemed ineffective. Furthermore, their appearance in the summary hearing was special and limited to raising issues of jurisdiction, not a submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. The Court also noted that the petitioner's claim of conflict of interest in requiring it to seek PDIC's authority was speculative, and it failed to show any attempt to seek such authorization.
Main Doctrine
A bank ordered closed by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Bangko Sentral) is placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). As a consequence of the receivership, the closed bank may sue and be sued only through its receiver, the PDIC. Any action filed by the closed bank without its receiver may be dismissed. Furthermore, petitions for certiorari against a quasi-judicial agency are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals, not by the Regional Trial Court.