Ekistics Philippines, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ekistics Philippines, Inc. (Ekistics), a stockholder of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino), filed a petition-in-intervention before the RTC seeking to enjoin the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) from selling Banco Filipino assets. This was after the BSP, through the Monetary Board, placed Banco Filipino under receivership and subsequently liquidation. Procedural History: The RTC granted Ekistics' petition-in-intervention and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) against the BSP, enjoining the sale of Banco Filipino assets, and later reduced the injunction bond. The BSP filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing these RTC orders. The CA initially granted the BSP's petition, annulling and setting aside the RTC orders. However, upon reconsideration, the CA amended its decision, affirming the RTC orders. Subsequently, the CA granted the BSP's motion for reconsideration and rendered a Second Amended Decision, reinstating its original decision and setting aside the RTC orders, holding that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the BSP and that Ekistics circumvented the law by filing a petition-in-intervention instead of a timely certiorari petition. The Petition: Ekistics filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, questioning the CA's Second Amended Decision, arguing that the RTC had jurisdiction, that the BSP's petition for certiorari was limited in scope, and that judicial courtesy should apply.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over the Petition-in-Intervention filed by Ekistics. Whether the lifting of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court against the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas was valid. Whether the principle of judicial courtesy applies in the present case.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Second Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the Petition-in-Intervention: The Court held that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the BSP, and thus its Orders granting the WPI against the BSP were void. An action for injunctive relief is an action in personam, requiring jurisdiction over the person of the respondent, which is acquired through summons or voluntary appearance. The BSP was never impleaded as a party in the liquidation case before the RTC, and thus, no valid jurisdiction was acquired over its person. The CA correctly took cognizance of this issue motu proprio in relation to the validity of the WPI against the BSP. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that actions of the Monetary Board regarding bank liquidation are exclusively reviewable by the CA via a petition for certiorari under Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653, and Ekistics' petition-in-intervention was a circumvention of these rules. The Court also found that res judicata did not apply because the issues and parties in the previous case (PDIC's petition) were different from the present case (BSP's petition). On the validity of lifting the WPI: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the issuance of the WPI by the RTC was unwarranted. Ekistics, as a minority stockholder, failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right in esse to the corporate assets, as a stockholder's interest is merely inchoate and contingent upon the settlement of corporate liabilities. The alleged injury was not shown to be serious and irreparable, as the fear of potential loss or future litigation does not constitute the requisite irreparable injury for an injunction. The primary responsibility of a bank is to its depositors and creditors, who have preference over stockholders. The Court agreed with the CA that the injunction did more harm than good by delaying payments to creditors and depositors. On the non-applicability of judicial courtesy: The Court found that the principle of judicial courtesy did not apply. The Court reasoned that the issues in the present case would not render moot the issues in other pending cases before the CA. Regardless of the outcome of the cases questioning the validity of the BSP's resolutions, the BSP, as a mortgagee, has the right to enforce its rights over collaterals securing its loans, as provided under Section 13(e)(3) of R.A. No. 3591, as amended. These collaterals are not considered assets of the closed bank in custodia legis and are thus beyond the jurisdiction of the liquidation court. Therefore, the BSP's right to dispose of foreclosed properties used as collateral for its loans remains irrespective of the liquidation proceedings' outcome.
Main Doctrine
The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) cannot be subjected to a writ of preliminary injunction by a Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a liquidation proceeding where the BSP was not impleaded as a party, as jurisdiction over the person is required for such an action. Furthermore, actions of the Monetary Board regarding bank liquidation are exclusively reviewable by the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, and not by an RTC through a petition-in-intervention.