CA orders BSP to answer allegations of Banco Filipino shareholders

MANILA, Philippines -  The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and other respondents to answer within a non-extendible period of five days the allegations of stockholders of Banco Filipino (BF) that it committed unlawful acts in seizing and disposing of the latter’s real estate assets as well as placing it under receivership.

The CA’s 14th Division, in a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, ordered the BSP, the Monetary Board (MB) and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC) to file their comment within the five-day period.

Concurring with the ruling promulgated on March 28 were Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta and Priscilla Baltazar-Padilla.

“Without necessarily giving due course to the instant petition, respondents are required to file their comment, and not a motion to dismiss, to the petition within a non-extendible period of five days from notice, likewise addressing therein the propriety of the issuance of a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary mandatory and preventive injunction,” the CA said.

Among the petitioners listed as BF’s stockholders were Metropolis Development Corp, Apex Mortgage and Loans Corp., BF Citiland Corp., Grand Farms Inc., Spring Sun Management Systems Corp., Tropical Land Corp., El Grande Development Corp., CLI Management Corp., Casa Tropical Inc., Filipino Vastland Co. Inc., Pilar Development Corp., PSC Financial Corp., Top Management Programs Corp.

Court records showed that the BSP had placed BF under receivership to provide immediate relief to the bank’s 177,652 depositors on the ground that it has supposedly been on a bank holiday since March 15.

However, this has been denied by the bank as a smear campaign started by BSP, causing heavy withdrawals in some branches.

The BF stockholders, in their petition, sought the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the MB’s Resolution no. 372-A, issued on March 17, which placed BF under receivership and barred it from continuing operations.

The BF stockholders had asked the CA to compel the BSP and MB to reopen the bank and release an emergency loan to service the withdrawals of the general public, and to hold the respondents liable for any damages that it has incurred as a result of the illegal closure and improvident and legally flawed receivership.

The bank said the recent arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, unreasonable and illegal closure of BF is highly reminiscent of its illegal closure in 1985 by then Central Bank Gov. Jobo Fernandez.

However, unlike in 1985, BF said the recent action of the MB and BSP of closing the bank was far “more blatant, illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and in grave abuse of discretion amounting to gross violation of due process and equal protection clause of the Constitution.”

“BSP insidiously planned the permanent closure and receivership and eventual liquidation of Banco Filipino in the guise of safeguarding the interests of the depositors and customers of the bank. BSP should be held fully accountable of BF’s bank-run, at the very least as a result if its failure to act on irresponsible media reports, if it was not the one which maliciously orchestrated them,” petitioners said through the Yasay Regalado Atienza and Mendoza law offices.