Damaso Perez vs.

Monetary Board settled rule that mandamus  will not lie to compel a

prosecuting officer to prosecute a criminal case in
G.R. No. L-23307, June 30, 1967 court.

Being an artificial person, The Central Bank is

limited to its statutory powers and the nearest Perez cannot seek by mandamus to compel
power to which prosecution of violators of banking respondents to prosecute criminally those alleged
laws may be attributed is its power to sue and be violators of the banking laws. Although the Central
sued. But this corporate power of litigation Bank and its respondent officials may have the duty
evidently refers to civil cases only. Violations of under the Central Bank Act and the General Banking
banking laws constitute a public offense, the Act to cause the prosecution of those alleged
prosecution of which is a matter of public interest violators, yet there is nothing in said laws that
and hence, anyone even private individuals can imposes a clear, specific duty on the former to do
denounce such violations before the prosecuting the actual prosecution of the latter. The Central
authorities. Bank is a government corporation created principally
to administer the monetary and banking system of
Facts:    Damaso Perez, for himself and in a derivative the Republic, not a prosecution agency like the
capacity on behalf of the Republic Bank, instituted fiscal’s office. Being an artificial person, The Central
mandamus proceedings in the Court of First Bank is limited to its statutory powers and the
Instance of Manila against the Monetary Board, the nearest power to which prosecution of violators of
Superintendent of Banks, the Central Bank and the banking laws may be attributed is its power to sue
Secretary of Justice. His object was to compel these and be sued. But this corporate power of litigation
respondents to prosecute, among others, Pablo evidently refers to civil cases only. Central Bank and
Roman and several other Republic Bank officials for its officers have already done what they can by
violations of the General Banking Act and the referring the matter to the special prosecutors of the
Central Bank Act, and for falsification of public or Department of Justice for prosecution and
commercial documents in connection with certain investigation. Moreover, it is a settled rule that
alleged anomalous loans amounting to mandamus will not lie to compel a prosecuting
P1,303,400.00 authorized by Roman and the other officer, like the Secretary of Justice, to prosecute a
bank officials. case in court.

Violations of banking laws constitute a public

Respondents, Monetary Board, the Superintendent offense, the prosecution of which is a matter of
of Banks, the Central Bank and the Secretary of public interest and hence, anyone even private
Justice their respective answers, the propriety individuals can denounce such violations before the
of mandamus. The Secretary of Justice claimed that prosecuting authorities. Since Perez himself could
it was not their specific duty to prosecute the cause the filing of criminal complaints against those
persons denounced by Perez. The Central Bank and allegedly involved in the anomalous loans, if any,
its respondent officials, on the other hand, averred then he has a plain, adequate and speedy remedy in
that they had already done their duty under the law the ordinary course of law, which makes
by referring to the special prosecutors of the mandamus against respondents improper. Hence,
Department of Justice for criminal investigation and the order of the lower court dismissing the petition
prosecution those cases involving the alleged was affirmed.
anomalous loans.

Issue:    Whether or not these respondents may be

compelled to prosecute criminally the alleged
violators of banking laws.

Held:    As for the Secretary of Justice, while he may

have the power to prosecute — through the office of
the Solicitor General — criminal cases, yet it is
 Busuego vs. CA [304 SCRA 473 of supervision and examination over banks and
non-bank financial institutions performing quasi-
(March 11 1999)] Power of banking functions of which savings and loan
Monetory Board associations, such as PESALA, form part of.

Facts:  The special law governing savings and loan

associations is R.A. 3779, the Savings and Loan
Association Act. Said law authorizes the MB to
The 16th regular examination of the books and conduct regular yearly examinations of the books
records of PAL Employees Savings and Loan and records of savings and loan associations, to
Association (PESALA) was conducted by a team of suspend a savings and loan association for violation
CB Examiners. Several irregularities were found to of law, to decide any controversy over the
have been committed by the PESALA officers. Hence, obligations and duties of directors and officers, and
CB sent a letter to petitioners for them to be to take remedial measures. Hence, the CB, through
present at a meeting specifically for the purpose of the MB, is empowered to conduct investigations and
investigating said anomalies. Petitioners did not examine the records of savings and loan
respond.  associations. If any irregularity is discovered in the
process, the MB may impose appropriate sanctions,
Hence, the Monetary Board adopted a resolution such as suspending the offender from holding office
including the names of the officers of PESALA in the or from being employed with the CB, or placing the
watchlist to prevent them from holding responsible names of the offenders in a watchlist.
positions in any institution under CB supervision.

Petitioners filed a petition for injunction against the

MB in order to prevent their names from being
added in the said watchlist. 

RTC issued the TRO. The MB appealed to the CA

which reversed RTC. 

Hence, this petition for certiorari with the SC.

Petitioners contend that the MB resolution was null
and void for being violative of their right to due
process by imposing administrative sanctions where
the MB is not vested with authority to disqualify
persons from occupying positions in institutions
under the supervision of CB.

Issue:

 Whether or not the MB resolution was null and

void.

Held:

 NO. The CB, through the MB, is the government

agency charged with the responsibility of
administering the monetary, banking and credit
system of the country and is granted the power
Koruga vs. Arcenas Case Digest Board can resolve the issue of whether a bank is to
be placed under receivership and upon an
G.R. No. 168332 & 169053; June 19, affirmative finding also has authority to appoint a
2009 receiver. This is further affirmed by the fact that the
law allows the Monetary Board to take action
summarily and without need for prior heading.
DOCTRINES:
Furthermore, the law explicitly provides that
Banking Laws “actions of the Monetary Board taken under this
section or under Section 29 of this Act shall be final
a) Law vests in the BSP the supervision over and executory, and may not be restrained or set
operations and activities of banks Section 25 of the aside by the court except on a petition for certiorari
New Central Bank Act provides that "Bangko Sentral on the ground that the action taken was in excess of
shall have supervision over, and conduct periodic or jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion
special examinations of banking institutions and as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction."
quasi-banks, including their subsidiaries and affiliates
engaged in allied activities” FACTS
BSP, which pursuant to its Charter, is authorized to Short version:
administer the monetary banking and credit system
of the Philippines. It is further authorized to take the Koruga, a minority stockholder of Banco Filipino,
necessary steps against any banking institution if its filed a complaint before the RTC against the
continued operation would cause prejudice to its defendant that pertained to the conduct of Banco
depositors, creditors and the general public as well Filipino banking business. Arcenas filed their Answer
raising, among others, the trial court's lack of
b) Meaning of Bank under General Banking Law. A jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. They filed
bank refers to an entity engaged in the lending of a Motion to Dismiss which was denied. Arcenas then
funds obtained in the form of deposits. prayed for an issuance of writ of preliminary
injunction with the CA in order to prevent RTC from
c) Corporation Code vs New Central Bank Act hearing the case. This was granted. Koruga then asks
Corporation Code - general law applying to all types this Court to restrain the CA from implementing the
of corporations writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile this Court
New Central Bank Act - regulates specifically banks granted the prayer for a TRO by Arcenas and
and other financial institutions, including the enjoined the RTC from proceeding with the hearing
dissolution and liquidation thereof. of the case. Koruga filed a motion to lift the TRO
which was denied
Conflict between Corporation Code and New Central
Bank Act New Central Bank Act prevails In G.R. No 169053, Arcenas asked the Court to set
aside the Decision dated July 20, 2005 of the CA in
Reason: Generalia specialibus non derogant- CA-GR SP No 88422, which denied their petition
Statutory construction provides that if there is a having found no grave abuse of discretion on the
conflict between a general and specific law, the part of the RTC Arcenas anchored their prayer on the
specific law prevails. The New Central Bank is a following grounds, among others, that jurisdiction
specific law as opposed to the Corporation Code, over the subject matter of the case is vested by law
which is a general law Hence New Central Bank Act in the BSP
prevails.
Long version: Koruga is a minority stockholder of
d) Exclusive jurisdiction of the Monetary board over Banco Filipino She filed a complaint before the RTC
proceedings for receivership of banks Section 30 of charging defendants with violation of Sections 31 to
the New Central Bank Act provides that the 34 of the Corporation Code prohibiting self dealing
appointment of a receiver under this section shall and conflict of interest of directors and officers,
ba vested exclusively with the Monetary Board The Invoked her right to inspect the corporation's
term exclusively connotes that only the Monetary records under Sections 74 and 75 of the Corporation
Code and prayed for Receivership and Creation of a Specifically the BSP's supervisory and regulatory
Management Committee pursuant to Rule 59 of the powers under Section 25 of The New Banking Law
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Securities Regulation include conduct of examination to determine
Code, the Interim Rules of Procedure Governing compliance with laws and regulations if the
Intra-Corporate Controversies the General Banking circumstances so warrant as determined by the
Law of 2000 and the New Central Bank Act She Monetary Board overseeing to ascertain that laws
accused the directors and officers of Banco Filipino and Regulations are complied with regular
of engaging in unsafe unsound and fraudulent investigation which shall not be oftener than once a
banking practices more particularly acts that violate year from the last date of examination to determine
the prohibition on self-dealing whether an institution is conducting its business on a
safe or sound basis and inquiring into the solvency
Arcenas. et al. filed their Answer raising among and liquidity of the institution In the instant case, the
others the trial court's lack of jurisdiction to take acts complained of by Koruga pertain to the conduct
cognizance of the case. They filed Motion to dismiss of Banco Filipino banking business Hence such
the case which the RTC denied The subsequent complaint is under the jurisdiction of BSP.
Motion for Reconsideration was also denied Arcenas
et al filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari and Moreover Section 56 of the General Banking Law of
Prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court with 2000 provides that the authority to determine
a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary whether a bank is conducting business in an unsafe
injunction and a temporary restraining order (ROCA or unsound manner is vested in the Monetary Board
granted this and issued a 60-day TROnjoining Judge The New Central Bank Act also grants the Monetary
Marella froni conducting further proceedings in the Board the power to impose administrative sanctions
case. on the herring bank.

Dissatisfied, Kuroga files this Petition for Certiorari Koruga's invocation of the provisions of the
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Kuroga alleged Corporation Code is also misplaced since Sections 29
that the CA effectively gave due course to Arcenas, and 30 of the New Central Bank Ad provides that it is
et. Al.’s petition when it issued a writ of preliminary the Monetary Board that exercises exclusive
injunction without factual or legal basis. She prayed jurisdiction over proceedings for receivership of
that this court restrain the CA from implementing banks The court's jurisdiction could only have been
the writ of preliminary injunction. Meanwhile this invoked after the Monetary Board had taken action
Court issued a Resolution granting the prayer for a on the matter and only on the ground that the action
TRO and enjoining the RTC from proceeding with the taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave
hearing of the case. Kuroga filed a motion to lift the abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of
TRO which was denied. jurisdiction.

Furthermore, Sec. 30 of the New Central Bank also

In GR No. 169053, Arcenas, et al asked the Court to provides that a petition for certiorari may only be
set aside the Decision dated July 20, 2005 of the CA filed by the stockholders of record representing the
in CA- GR SP No: 88422, which denied their petition, majority of the capital stock. Kuroga, by her own
having found no grave abuse of discretion on the admission, stated that she is merely a minority
part RTC Arcenas, et al anchored their prayer on the stockholder of Banco Filipino. Hence she would not
following grounds among others, that jurisdiction have the standing to question the Monetary Board’s
over the subject matter of the case is vested by law action.
in the BSP.

ISSUE/S: Which body has jurisdiction over the Koruga

Complaint, the RTC or the BSP?

HELD:

BSP. The New Central Bank Act vests in the BSP the
supervision over operations and activities of banks.
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Banco This new law abolished the CB and a new central monetary
authority was established known as Bangko Sentral ngPilipinas.
Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (2018)
SUMMARY But also under the said law, the CB will continue to exist under the
name Central Bank-Board of Liquidators (CB-BOL) for the sole
The SC dismissed Banco Filipino’s petition for revival of judgment of purpose of administering and liquidating the assets and liabilities of
the 1991 SC Decision ordering the CB that were not transferred to the BSP.
the Monetary Board ordering the reopening of BF, on the grounds
of prescription and that it had already beencomplied with. During meeting held on November 6, 1993, the BSP-MB, resolved:
DOCTRINE
:The prevailing party may move for the execution of a final and “1. To allow the Banco Filipino Savings andMortgage Bank (BFSMB)
executory judgment as a matter ofright within five years from the to reopen, subject to submission of its proposed organization
entry of judgment. If no motion is filed within this period, the including the list of officersand its plan of operations.”
judgment is convertedto a mere right of action and can only be
enforced by instituting a complaint for the revival of judgment in  Thus, on July 1, 1994, BFSMB reopened and resumed business
regularcourt within 10 years from finality of judgment.BSP, the under the comptrollership of the BSP.
independent central monetary authority established by the law, is
still given sufficient independenceand latitude to carry out its Sometime in December 2002, BFSMB experienced massive
mandate. withdrawals. Thus, BFSMB applied for emergency financial
assistance from the BSP to maintain liquidity. However, such
assistance appeared to have been insufficient to stem the effects of
FACTS the massive withdrawals.

In MB Resolution No. 955 dated July 27, 1984, the Central Bank- Thus, in letter dated October 9, 2003, BFSMB further requested BSP
Monetary Board (CB-MB) placed Banco Filipino Savings and for financial assistance "similar [to]arrangements" that had been
Mortgage Bank (BFSMB) under conservatorship of one Basilio extended to other banks similarly situated.
Estanislao. In response thereto, the BSP, through a letter dated November 21,
2003 by Director Candon B. Guerrero, Supervision and Examination
Eventually, pursuant to another resolution, MB Resolution No. 75 Department III, and Director Rolando Alejandro Q. Agustin,
dated January 25, 1985, the CB-MB ordered the closure of BFSMB Department of Loans and Credit, advised BFSMB that because of
on the ground that the latter was found to be "insolvent and that "strict requirements imposed by [Republic Act No. 7653], BSP is
its continuance in business would involve probable loss to its not in a position to assist BFSMB at this time."
depositors and creditors x x x."
But they added that, "should BFSMB be able to comply with all the
On February 28, 1985, BFSMB filed before the Court a petition for legal requirements [relative to its requests], ESP would not hesitate
certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to extend its support and assistance.
seeking to annul MB Resolution No. 75 "as made without or in
excess of jurisdiction or withgrave abuse of discretion x x." The "One such requirement is "BSP-approved rehabilitation
petition was docketed as G.R. No. 70054 entitled, "Banco Filipino program."Taking its cue from the above-narrated letter, on April 14,
Savingsand Mortgage Bank v. The Monetary Board, Central Bank of 2004, BFSMB transmitted a long term business plan(business plan)
the Philippines, Jose B. Fernandez, Carlota P.Valenzuela, Arnulfo B. for consideration of the BSP-MB. BFSMB's business plan was
Aurellano and Ramon V. Tiaoqui," which was later consolidated premised on the assertion that, having "stepped into the shoes of
with eight other cases. the old CentralBank," the BSP was obligated to "reorganize" it
(BFSMB) through the following:
In a consolidated Decision dated December 11, 1991, the Court,
among others, annulled and set aside MBResolution No. 75, and (i) restoring its 89 branches that used to operate prior
ordered the CB-MB to allow BFSMB to resume business. to its closure in 1985; and
(ii) (ii) extending financial support that are not
Less than two years thereafter, or on July 6, 1993, Republic Act No. subjected to stringent requirements.
7653, otherwise known as The New CentralBank Act of 1993, took In reply thereto, however, BSP-MB stated that it had no basis
effect. to act on the business plan considering that the latter
appeared to have been taken up and approved by BFSMB's
Executive Committee, and not by its Board of Directors, and
 because of BFSMB's insistence that BSP-MB are the readily identifiable. There is, thus, no reason for BF to use, as an
successors-in-interest of CB-MB, "anallegation that [BSP-MB] excuse for its delay to file an action to revive judgment, the
have consistently denied in x x x previous communications x x x creation of the BSP as the new central monetary authority. It is
[and which issue] is still subject to contest in pending [court] apparent that there has been merely transfer of interest between
proceedings." the two entities, with the organization made more efficient by the
creation of a body known as the CB-BOL.
Hence, on July 14, 2004, BFSMB filed Petition for Revival of  
Judgment to enforce the Decision of the Court in G.R. No. 70054  And worth noting is the fact that when BFSMB finally filed the
that became final and executory on February 4, 1992. petition for revival of judgment in2004, it filed it against both the
BSP-MB and CB-BOL. BFSMB could have done the same and filed
Said petition was filed against the CB-MB, represented by the CB- the action against both entities anytime within the ten year
BOL, and the BSP-MB. BSP-MB and CB-BOL separately moved to prescriptive period if it was really unsure which of the two to go
dismissthe petition. against.

The RTC denied the motions to dismiss.  2. WoN, absent prescription, BFSMB‘s petition for revival
of judgment must be dismissed
Aggrieved, BSP-MB and CB-BOL went to the Court of   
Appeals via separate petitions for certiorari.
The CA dismissed BSP- MB’s petition for certiorari.  YES. The judgment obligation had already been extinguished
However, another Division of the CA granted CB-BOL’s petition through performance.
and
ordered the dismissal of BFSMB's Petition for Revival of Judgment..  Thus, what this Court obliged CB-MB to do was:

BFSMB insists that the passage of RA No. 7653 tolled the period of (1) to reorganize, and 
prescription because it rendered the enforceability of the
judgment sought to be revived uncertain, i.e., when the (2) to reopen BFSMB. Such reorganization and reopening, however,
enforceability of a final judgment becomes uncertain, the period for were imposed with conditions, to wit:
such purpose is tolled and prescription does not operate. Further, it (1) that they be done under the comptrollership of the
asserts that the partial performance by BSP of the subject judgment CB-MB; and
obligation further tolled the running period. (2) the reorganization of BFSMB should be done under
conditionsto be prescribed by the CB-MB.
ISSUES Note further, that the comptrollership and imposition of
certain conditions by CBMB were to be accomplished within a
1.  WoN the passage of RA No. 7653 tolled period, i.e., "until such time that petitioner bank can continue in
the period of prescription business with safety to its creditors, depositors and the general
  public." But most importantly, nothing in the dispositive of the
HELD: subject decision specified and enumerated how CB-MB was to
reorganize BFSMB, or what conditions would be imposed in
 NO. First of all, contrary to BF's proposal, there was no vacuum furtherance thereof.
created with the passage of R.A.7653 that would render BF
uncertain as against whom it can enforce its rights.  On this point, We agree with BSP-MB that, "the reliefs prayed for
by BFSMB cannot be mandated by judicial compulsion through a
All powers, duties and functions vested by law in the Central Bank of mere revival of judgment considering that they lie within the
the Philippineswere deemed transferred to the BSP. discretion of the BSP-MB taking into account sound banking
principles.
The law provides that all references to the Central Bank of the " Verily, nothing changed with the enactment of Republic Act No.
Philippines in any law or special charters shall be deemed to refer 7653. BSP, the independent central monetary authority
to the BSP. Further, R.A. 7653 states that any asset or liability of the established by the law, is still given sufficient independence and
Central Bank not transferred to the Bangko Sentral shall be latitude to carry out its mandate.
retained and administered, disposed of and liquidated by the
Central Bank itself which shall continue to exist as the CB Board of  It is evident that the judgment obligation imposed by the Decision
Liquidators or CB-BOL. In other words, the entities where the in G.R. No. 70054 had already been extinguished through its
assets and liabilities of the Central Bank have been transferred are performance - BFSMB had been reopened and reorganized under
the comptrollership of the BSP -MB, which comptrollership lasted
until January 20, 2000, upon the agreement of BSP-MB and BFSMB
to implement the Memorandum of Agreement dated December
20, 1999, to wit:
“
7. IMPLEMENTATION The parties undertake to perform the
following acts to implement thisAGREEMENT and its purposes:
(a) Within thirty (30) days from execution of this AGREEMENT,
BANGKO SENTRAL shall lift the comptrollership over BANCO
FILIPINO and deliver to the latter all collaterals in its custody. The
government securities remaining in thecustody of the designated
comptrollersshall be released upon the signing of this AGREEMENT.