Court of Appeals junks Banco Filipino bid for P25-billion BSP aid

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals has denied the bid of the Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank to pursue the P25-billion financial assistance package from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas before the embattled bank was closed last March.

In a nine-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Hakim Abdulwahid, the special 10th division of the appellate court junked the motion of Banco Filipino that seeks to lift the writ of preliminary injunction it issued last February enjoining the Makati City Regional Trial Court from implementing its order for the release of aid from BSP.

Associate Justices Noel Tijam and Ricardo Rosario concurred in the ruling.

The ruling junked Banco Filipino’s claim that BSP and the Monetary Board stand to suffer no grave irreparable injury that would warrant the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.

“As aptly pointed out by petitioners (BSP and Monetary Board), allowing the case to proceed will prevent the former from, or hamper their functions in, exercising regulatory functions over private respondent, which in turn, would work great injustice and cause irreparable injury to the general public,” the CA said.

It further held that it was wrong for Banco Filipino to assert that the BSP and its Monetary Board have no clear right to the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in their favor.

It noted that the bank filed its petition assailing Monetary Board Resolution No. 1668 with the Makati RTC on Oct. 20, 2010 or after the Supreme Court had ruled that petitions for writs of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court against the acts and omissions of quasi-judicial agencies should be filed with the appellate court for procedural uniformity.

The CA stressed that Banco Filipino’s contention that its petition is likewise cognizable by the Makati RTC is “untenable.”

In its five-page resolution last Feb. 14, the special 10th division of the appellate court granted the motion of BSP and issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the order of Makati RTC Branch 66 presiding Judge Joselito Villarosa directing the bank and its policy-making body, the Monetary Board, to implement its Resolution No. 1668 issued on Nov. 19, 2009.

In the assailed order, the RTC restrained both MB and BSP officers, employees and representatives “from enforcing other regulatory measures and abuses calculated to coerce petitioner (Banco Filipino) into agreeing to drop and/or withdraw its suits and damage claims against respondents (MB and BSP) and to waive future claims against respondents or their officers, employees, representatives and all persons acting in their behalf.”

The BSP and the MB have also been restrained by the trial court “from continuing and committing acts prejudicial to petitioner’s (Banco Filipino’s) operation.”

In their petition, BSP and MB argued that the Makati RTC violated their right to due process when it took cognizance of the case filed by Banco Filipino despite lack of jurisdiction.

The petitioners further argued that allowing the case to proceed would prevent BSP from performing its constitutionally mandated duty to provide policy direction in banking activities and to supervise the operations of banks.

They added that the denial of its motion for a writ of preliminary injunction would “infringe on the powers and functions of the State… to enforce its primary objective to maintain price stability conducive to a balanced and sustainable economic growth.”

The BSP and MB argued that allowing the Makati RTC to continue hearing Civil Case No. 10-1042 would hold them liable for indirect contempt and would expose their officials to possible arrest, causing them national and international humiliation.

The CA initially agreed with the petitioners.

“It being apparent that petitioners have a clear legal right to be protected against the immediate enforcement of the assailed order and that petitioners stand to suffer grave and irreparable injury from the continuance of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 10-1042, and so as not to render the instant petition moot and academic, we find that the approval of petitioners’ application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is warranted,” it explained.