indin indin(s (s,'c ,'cept eption ions4 s4 additiona" capita".
BSP MONETARY BOARD vs HON. VALENZUELA G.R. No. 184778 Octobe !" !##$
BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS MONETARY BOARD and CHUCHI FONACIER, Petitioners, vs.
HON. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, in h! "a#a"i$% a& R'i(na) T!ia) C(*!$ +*d' ( Mani)a, B!an"h / RURAL BANK OF PARA0A1UE, INC./ RURAL BANK OF SAN +OSE 2BAT 2BATANGAS3, ANGAS3, INC./ RURAL BANK OF CARMEN 2CEBU3, INC./ PILIPINO RURAL BANK, INC./ PHILIPPINE COUNTRYSIDE RURAL BANK, INC./ RURAL BANK OF CALATAGAN 2BATANGAS3, INC. 2n(4 DYNAMIC RURAL BANK3/ RURAL BANK OF DARBCI, INC./ RURAL BANK OF KANANGA 2LEYTE3, INC. 2n(4 FIRST INTERSTATE RURAL BANK3/ RURAL BANK OF BISAYAS BISAYAS MINGLANILLA 2n(4 BANK OF EAST ASIA3/ and SAN PABLO CITY DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC.,Respondents.
DO% O%T TR&NE' The issuance by RTC of WPI is an unwarranted interference w the powers of MB. The actions of MB under Sec. 29 and 3 of !ew Centra" Ban# $ct %&ay not be restra restraine ined d or set aside aside by the the court court e'cept e'cept on petition of certiorari on the (round that the action ta#en was was in e'cess e'cess of )urisd )urisdict iction ion or w such such (ra*e (ra*e abuse abuse of discretion as to a&ount to "ac# or e'cess of )urisdiction.+
VELASCO, +R., J.:
The Super*ision Super*ision and ,'a&inat ,'a&ination ion -ept. -ept. S,-/ S,-/ of BSP BSP cond conduc ucte ted d e'a& e'a&in inat atio ions ns of the the boo# boo#s s of respondent ban#s.
-eficiencies were disco*ered durin( e'a&inations. These These ban#s ban#s were were then then re0ui re0uired red under underta ta#e #e the re&edia" &easures stated in the 1i st st of
inc"ud inc"udin( in(
the the
infusi infusion on
of
The ban#s c"ai&ed they &ade the necessary capita" infusion4 but Petitioner Chuchi onacier 5IC of S,-/ sent sent sepa separa rate te "ett "etter er to the the B5B5- of each each ban# ban#44 infor&in( the& that the ban#s fai"ed to carry out the re0uired re&edia" &easures. The The ban#s ban#s re0ues re0ueste ted d that that they they be (i*en (i*en ti&e ti&e to obtain obtain BSP appro* appro*a" a" to a&end a&end their their $rtic" $rtic"es es of Incorporation4 to see# new in*estors4 and that the basis for the capita" infusion be disc"osed. They a"so noted that none of the& had recei*ed the Report of ,'a&ination R5,/ wc fina"i6es the audit findin(s. Respondent Respondent ban#s fi"ed a co&p"aint for ()**+,+c-t+o( o, ROE --+(st --+(st /et+t+o( /et+t+o(es es44 w TRO TRO -(0 -(0 P& P& 2+t o, Pe*+3+(- &(5)(ct+o(6 &(5)(ct+o(6 en)oinin( BSP fro& fro& sub&it sub&ittin tin( ( the the R5, R5, to the Monet Monetary ary Boa Board rd MB/ contendin( that the fai"ure to furnish the ban# w the R5, *io"ated their ri(ht to due process. Petitioners fi"ed M- on procedura" (rounds. RT%' ru"ed RT%' ru"ed in fa*our of the ban#s. It had been the practice of S,- to pro*ide R5,s to the ban#s before sub& sub&is issi sion on to MB. MB. $s ban# ban#s s are are sub) sub)ec ectt of e'a&i e'a&inat nation ions4 s4 they they are entit entit"ed "ed to copies copies of the the R5,s R5,s.. The The deni denia" a" by peti petiti tion oner ers s of the the ban# ban#s7 s7
re0uests for copies of R5,s was he"d to be a denia" of the ban#s7 ri(ht to due process. %A' affir&ed the RTC decision4 findin( no (ra*e abuse of discretion. S%' issued a TR54 restrainin( C$4 RTC and respondent ban#s fro& i&p"e&entin( and enforcin( the C$ decision. By reason of this TR54 the S,- was ab"e to sub&it their R5,s to MB. MB then prohibited the respondent ban#s fro& transactin( business and p"aced the& under recei*ershop under Sec. 83 of R$ :9; and Sec. 3 of R$ :<83. &SSUE' W5! I. In)unction issued by RTC *io"ated Sec. 28 of !ew Centra" Ban# $ct and effecti*e"y handcuffed the BSP fro& dischar(in( its functions to the (reat and irreparab"e da&a(e of the country7s ban#in( syste&= II. Respondent ban#s are entit"ed to be furnished copies of the respecti*e R5,s before the sa&e is sub&itted to MB HELD' &. YES &&. NO 1. Re0uisites for pre"i&inary in)uncti*e re"ief are> -. In*asion of ri(ht sou(ht to be protected is &ateria" and substantia"
b. Ri(ht of the co&p"ainant is c"ear and un&ista#ab"e c. There is an ur(ent and para&ount necessity for the writ to pre*ent serious da&a(e !. These re0uire&ents are absent in the present case. . Respondent ban#s ha*e fai"ed to show that they are entit"ed to copies of the R5,s. !o pro*ision of "aw4 nor a section in the procedures of the BSP shows that BSP is re0uired to (i*e the& copies of the R5,s. 4. Sec. 2 of the !ew Centra" Ban# $ct4 wc (o*erns the e'a&inations of ban#in( institutions4 pro*ides that the R5, sha"" be sub&itted to the MB= the ban# e'a&ined is not &entioned as recipient of the R5,. . The contents of the R5,s are essentia""y the sa&e as those of the 1ist of indin(s,'ceptions pro*ided to said ban#s4 wc were furnished to the the&4 hence they cannot c"ai& that their ri(ht to due process was *io"ated. The R5,s wou"d be superf"uities. 9. The issuance by RTC of WPI is an unwarranted interference w the powers of MB. The actions of MB under Sec. 29 and 3 of !ew Centra" Ban# $ct %&ay not be restrained or set aside by the court e'cept on petition of certiorari on the (round that the action ta#en was in e'cess of )urisdiction or w such (ra*e abuse of discretion as to a&ount to "ac# or e'cess of )urisdiction.+ 7. $s to the 3 rd re0t4 the serious da&a(e conte&p"ated by RTC is the sanction of c"osure of the ban#s. ?nder the "aw" the sanction of c"osure cou"d be i&posed upon a ban# by BSP e*en wo notice and hearin(4 to pre*ent unwarranted dissipation of ban#7s assets and *a"id e'ercise of po"ice power to protect the
sta#eho"ders of the ban#s 2:c*ose (o;"
