Monday, September 20, 2021
10:56 PM
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (2018)
Doctrine
A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner bank which has been placed
under receivership is dismissible as it did not join PDIC as a party to the case.
Facts:
Petitioner bank has been placed under receivership when it filed a Petition for Certiorari with the
Supreme Court. Said Petition was assailed by the respondent that contended that the same should be
dismissed outright for being led without Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation’s authority. It asserts
that petitioner was placed under receivership on March 17, 2011, and thus, petitioner’s Executive
Committee would have had no authority to sign for or on behalf of petitioner absent the authority of its
receiver, Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. They also point out that both the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation Charter and Republic Act No. 7653 categorically state that the authority to file
suits or retain counsels for closed banks is vested in the receiver. Thus, the verification and certification
of non-forum shopping signed by petitioner’s Executive Committee has no legal effect.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Banco Filipino, as a closed bank under receivership, could file this Petition for
Review without joining its statutory receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, as a party to
the case.
Ruling:
A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation. Under Republic Act No. 7653, when the Monetary Board finds a bank insolvent,
it may “summarily and without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from doing business in the
Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking
institution.”
The relationship between the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation and a closed bank is fiduciary in
nature. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 directs the receiver of a closed bank to “immediately gather
and take charge of all the assets and liabilities of the institution” and “administer the same for the
benefit of its creditors.” The law likewise grants the receiver “the general powers of a receiver under the
Revised Rules of Court.” Under Rule 59, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, “a receiver shall have the power
to bring and defend, in such capacity, actions in his [or her] own name.” Thus, Republic Act No. 7653
provides that the receiver shall also “in the name of the institution, and with the assistance of counsel as
[it] may retain, institute such actions as may be necessary to collect and recover accounts and assets of,
or defend any action against, the institution.” Considering that the receiver has the power to take
charge of all the assets of the closed bank and to institute for or defend any action against it, only the
receiver, in its fiduciary capacity, may sue and be sued on behalf of the closed bank.
When petitioner was placed under receivership, the powers of its Board of Directors and its officers
were suspended. Thus, its Board of Directors could not have validly authorized its Executive Vice
Presidents to file the suit on its behalf. The Petition, not having been properly verified, is considered an
New Section 1 Page 1
Presidents to file the suit on its behalf. The Petition, not having been properly verified, is considered an
unsigned pleading. A defect in the certification of non-forum shopping is likewise fatal to petitioner’s
cause. Considering that the Petition was led by signatories who were not validly authorized to do so, the
Petition does not produce any legal effect. Being an unauthorized pleading, this Court never validly
acquired jurisdiction over the case. The Petition, therefore, must be dismissed.
New Section 1 Page 2