Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
CB filed a motion to dismiss and prayed for the lifting of the injunction arguing
among other things that the assailed MB resolutions were merely advisory, which
means that it does not effect impairment of plaintiffs rights nor cause it prejudice,
loss, or damage. It also noted that there was no basis for the averments on the
illegality of the conservatorship since the complaint did not seek its annulment. The
RTC however dismissed the motion to dismissed and ruled that the MB resolutions
were arbitrarily issued. CB filed a petition for certiorari before the CA but CA
affirmed the RTC decision. Hence this recourse to the SC.
Issue: Whether the RTC was correct in granting the injunction, essentially lifting the
conservatorship and declaring the MB resolutions arbitrary.
Ruling: No.
It must be noted that PBP has been under conservatorship since January 1984. If the
lifting of the conservatorship was sought for because it was arbitrarily imposed, the
RTC should have dismissed it on the ground of prescription. (Another reason given
by the SC was lack of authority as the complaint was filed without the approval of
the majority). Under the 5th paragraph of Section 29 of the Central Bank Act, as
amended, the actions of the MB may be assailed in an appropriate pleading filed by
the stockholders of record representing the majority stock within ten (10) days from
receipt of notice by the said majority stockholders of the order placing the bank
under conservatorship.
Hence, the requisites to set aside a conservatorship are:
1. The appropriate pleading must be filed by the stockholders of record
representing the majority of the capital stock of the bank in the proper court;
2. Said pleading must be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of notice by said
majority stockholders of the order placing the bank under conservatorship;
and
3. There must be convincing proof, after hearing that the action is plainly
arbitrary and made in bad faith.
These requisites are not met. It was established that the complaint was filed without
the approval of the majority. Also, the complaint was filed only in August 1987 or
three years, seven months and seven days later, long after the expiration of the 10day period prescribed.
(The court noted that even with this clear provision of law, respondents antics of
showing in the pleadings the apparent injustices successfully captured the
sympathy of the lower courts which found merit in their case.)
As to the issue of arbitrariness of the MB resolutions, it must be stressed that the
banking business is properly subject to reasonable regulation under the police
power of the state because of its nature and relation to the fiscal affairs of the
people and revenues of the state. Banks are affected with public interest because
they receive funds from the general public. It is the governments duty (thru the CB)
to see to it that the financial interests of those who deal with banks and banking
institutions are protected.