This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Granting that only the SEC Chairman was impleaded in this case, the Court has ample powers to order the SEC's compliance with its directive contained in the 28 June 2011 Decision in view of the far-reaching implications of this case. In Domingo v. Scheer,[52] the Court dispensed with the amendment of the pleadings to implead the Bureau of Customs considering (1) the unique backdrop of the case; (2) the utmost need to avoid further delays; and (3) the issue of public interest involved. The Court held: The Court may be curing the defect in this case by adding the BOC as party-petitioner. The petition should not be dismissed because the second action would only be a repetition of the first. In Salvador, et al., v. Court of Appeals, et al., we held that this Court has full powers, apart from that power and authority which is inherent, to amend the processes, pleadings, proceedings and decisions by substituting as party-plaintiff the real party-in-interest. The Court has the power to avoid delay in the disposition of this case, to order its amendment as to implead the BOC as party-respondent. Indeed, it may no longer be necessary to do so taking into account the unique backdrop in this case, involving as it does an issue of public interest. After all, the Office of the Solicitor General has represented the petitioner in the instant proceedings, as well as in the appellate court, and maintained the validity of the deportation order and of the BOC's Omnibus Resolution. It cannot, thus, be claimed by the State that the BOC was not afforded its day in court, simply because only the petitioner, the Chairperson of the BOC, was the respondent in the CA, and the petitioner in the instant recourse. In Alonso v. Villamor, we had the occasion to state: | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| According to the petitioners, it is clear from these provisions that the "report of the supervising or examining department" required under Section 30 refers to the report on the examination of the bank which, under Section 28, must be made to the MB after the supervising or examining head conducts an examination mandated by Sections 25 and 28.[18] They cite Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines[19] wherein the Court ruled:There is no question that under Section 29 of the Central Bank Act, the following are the mandatory requirements to be complied with before a bank found to be insolvent is ordered closed and forbidden to do business in the Philippines: Firstly, an examination shall be conducted by the head of the appropriate supervising or examining department or his examiners or agents into the condition of the bank; secondly, it shall be disclosed in the examination that the condition of the bank is one of insolvency, or that its continuance in business would involve probable loss to its depositors or creditors; thirdly, the department head concerned shall inform the Monetary Board in writing, of the facts; and lastly, the Monetary Board shall find the statements of the department head to be true.[20] (Emphasis supplied) Petitioners assert that an examination is necessary and not a mere report, otherwise the decision to close a bank would be arbitrary. | |||||
|
2007-02-08 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| In the case of Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines, [13] this Court ruled that the bank's closure did not diminish the authority and powers of the designated liquidator to effectuate and carry on the administration of the bank, thus:x x x. We did not prohibit however acts such as receiving collectibles and receivables or paying off creditors' claims and other transactions pertaining to the normal operations of a bank. There is no doubt that that the prosecution of suits for collection and the foreclosure of mortgages against debtors of the bank by the liquidator are among the usual and ordinary transactions pertaining to the administration of a bank. x x x. Likewise, in Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Ybañez, [14] where one of the issues was whether respondent bank can collect interest on its loans during its period of liquidation and closure, this Court held: | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In the meantime, on January 15, 1985, on the basis of the finding of the Monetary Board that Banco Filipino was insolvent and unable to do business without loss to its creditors and depositors, the Central Bank issued a Resolution ordering the closure of Banco Filipino and placing it under receivership of the then Deputy Governor of the Central Bank.[9] | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On December 11, 1991, this Court, in Banco Filipino & Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines,[10] held that the closure of Banco Filipino was arbitrary and committed with grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the Central Bank and the Monetary Board were ordered to reorganize Banco Filipino and allow it to resume business. | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The power and authority of the Monetary Board to close banks and liquidate them thereafter when public interest so requires is an exercise of the police power of the State. Police power, however, is subject to judicial inquiry. It may not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably and could be set aside if it is either capricious, discriminatory, whimsical, arbitrary, unjust, or is tantamount to a denial of due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.[21] | |||||
|
2004-12-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Monetary Board,[13] the validity of the closure and receivership of Banco Filipino was put in issue. But the pendency of the case did not diminish the authority of the designated liquidator to administer and continue the bank's transactions. The Court allowed the bank's liquidator to continue receiving collectibles and receivables or paying off creditor's claims and other transactions pertaining to normal operations of a bank. Among these transactions were the prosecution of suits against debtors for collection and for foreclosure of mortgages. The bank was allowed to collect interests on its loans while under liquidation, provided that the interests were legal. | |||||
|
2004-10-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This we made clear in Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines[24] where we explained that:Section 29 of the Republic Act No. 265, as amended known as the Central Bank Act, provides that when a bank is forbidden to do business in the Philippines and placed under receivership, the person designated as receiver shall immediately take charge of the bank's assets and liabilities, as expeditiously as possible, collect and gather all the assets and administer the same for the benefit of its creditors, and represent the bank personally or through counsel as he may retain in all actions or proceedings for or against the institution, exercising all the powers necessary for these purposes including, but not limited to, bringing and foreclosing mortgages in the name of the bank.[25] | |||||
|
2004-10-01 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| This is consistent with the purpose of receivership proceedings, i.e., to receive collectibles and preserve the assets of the bank in substitution of its former management, and prevent the dissipation of its assets to the detriment of the creditors of the bank.[26] | |||||