Banco Filipino Savings v. Bangko Sentral
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino) was previously ordered closed by the Monetary Board on January 25, 1985. This Court, however, declared the closure void due to grave abuse of discretion on December 11, 1991, and ordered the bank's reorganization and resumption of business under the comptrollership of the Central Bank and the Monetary Board. Subsequently, Banco Filipino filed several complaints, including a claim for damages totaling P18,800,000,000.00. In 2002, facing heavy withdrawals, Banco Filipino sought financial assistance from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (Bangko Sentral), which required compliance with Republic Act No. 7653 and submission of an approved rehabilitation plan. Despite negotiations and revisions to its business plan, an agreement on the terms, particularly concerning the withdrawal of pending cases against Bangko Sentral, could not be reached. 2. Procedural History: The instant case stems from Banco Filipino's filing of a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) on October 20, 2010, docketed as Civil Case No. 10-1042 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City. Banco Filipino alleged grave abuse of discretion by Bangko Sentral and the Monetary Board in conditioning the approval of its business plan and financial assistance on the withdrawal of its cases. The RTC granted the TRO on October 28, 2010, and subsequently denied the respondents' Motion to Dismiss and granted the WPI on November 18, 2010. Bangko Sentral and the Monetary Board assailed these orders before the Court of Appeals (CA) via petitions for certiorari. In its October 3, 2011 Decision, the CA reversed the RTC's orders, annulling and nullifying them for lack of jurisdiction and directing the RTC to dismiss the case. The CA's Resolution dated February 14, 2012, denied Banco Filipino's motion for reconsideration. Separately, on March 17, 2011, the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 372.A, placing Banco Filipino under receivership, which was assailed by the bank in CA-G.R. SP No. 118599. 3. The Petition: Banco Filipino filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's October 3, 2011 Decision and February 14, 2012 Resolution. The petition argues that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC's issuance of the TRO and WPI. The core of Banco Filipino's argument is that Bangko Sentral and the Monetary Board committed grave abuse of discretion in imposing the withdrawal of pending cases and waiver of future claims as conditions for the approval of its business plan and financial assistance. The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the petition, primarily on the grounds of mootness, as a prior decision in G.R. No. 200678 had already disposed of the main action, and for lack of jurisdiction, noting that a bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver (PDIC), and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter as petitions involving quasi-judicial agencies are cognizable only by the CA.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the petition and over respondents. Whether respondents should have filed a motion for reconsideration before the trial court before elevating the same to the CA. Whether the issuance of the TRO and WPI was proper. Whether both parties were guilty of forum shopping against both parties. Whether petitioner failed to secure authorization from the PDIC to file the instant Petition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court ruled that the case was moot and academic because the main action had already been decided with finality by this Court in G.R. No. 200678. Even assuming arguendo that the case was not moot, the petition would still be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, primarily because Banco Filipino, a bank under receivership, failed to secure authorization from its receiver, the PDIC, to file the petition. Furthermore, the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case, as petitions for certiorari and mandamus involving acts of a quasi-judicial agency like the Monetary Board are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the trial court's jurisdiction over the subject matter: The Court reiterated that unless otherwise provided by law or rules, petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus involving acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency are cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. The Monetary Board has been consistently recognized as a quasi-judicial agency exercising quasi-judicial functions. Therefore, Banco Filipino's petition for certiorari and mandamus should have been filed before the CA, not the RTC. The RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the main case rendered all its proceedings, including the issuance of the TRO and WPI, void. Jurisdiction is the power to hear, try, and decide a case, and proceedings before a court without jurisdiction are null and void. This lack of jurisdiction extends to ancillary writs, as they are mere incidents of the main action. There was no discussion in the provided text regarding whether respondents should have filed a motion for reconsideration before elevating the case to the CA. On the issue of mootness and academicness regarding the TRO and WPI: The Court reiterated that TROs and WPIs are ancillary remedies, dependent on the outcome of the main action. As such, they cannot survive the resolution of the main case. When a main action is dismissed or decided with finality, any provisional remedy issued in connection therewith is dissolved or rendered moot. In this case, the Supreme Court's Decision in G.R. No. 200678 had already disposed of the main action in Civil Case No. 10-1042, finding that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. This Decision had attained finality and was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment. Therefore, any disposition on the propriety of the TRO and WPI would serve no practical purpose and was rendered moot and academic. There was no discussion in the provided text regarding whether both parties were guilty of forum shopping. On the issue of PDIC authorization: The Court emphasized that a bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the PDIC. The PDIC is mandated to take charge of all assets and liabilities of the closed bank and administer them for the benefit of creditors. Its powers include bringing suits to enforce liabilities or recoveries. The powers of the directors, officers, and stockholders of a closed bank are suspended upon takeover by the PDIC. In this case, Banco Filipino was placed under PDIC receivership on March 17, 2011. The instant petition was filed on April 10, 2012, during the pendency of proceedings assailing the receivership. However, the records did not indicate any authority from the PDIC for the filing of the petition. The verification and certification of non-forum shopping were signed by executive vice presidents whose authority stemmed from the Board of Directors (BOD), whose powers were suspended. Thus, the petition was not deemed filed, and the Court did not acquire jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
A petition concerning the propriety of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) becomes moot and academic once the main case has been decided with finality. Furthermore, a court lacks jurisdiction over a case filed by a bank under receivership if the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), as the statutory receiver, has not authorized the filing of such suit.