ANDRES, BILLY JOE

1C-JD5
JURISDICTION

VIVAS VS MONETARY BOARD, ETC

G.R. NO: 191424
AUGUST 7, 2013
Facts:
The Rural Bank of Faire, Incorporated (RBFI) was a duly registered rural banking institution that the corporate
life expired on May 2005. Vivas and the new management team conducted internal audit and introduced measures to
revitalize the dismal operation of the bank. BSP extended RBFI corporate life and approve the change of its name to
EuroCredit Community Bank, Incorporated (ECBI).
General examination of ECBI were conducted by BSP and was placed under Prompt Corrective Action (PCA) by
the Monetary Board in 2008 because of the serious findings and supervisory concerns noted during the general
examination.
The MB issued Resolution, approving the issuance of a cease and desist order against ECBI, which enjoined it
from pursuing certain acts and transactions that were considered unsafe or unsound banking practices, and from doing
such other acts or transactions constituting fraud or might result in the dissipation of its assets.
Vivas filed petition for prohibition ascribing grave abuse of discretion to the MB for prohibiting ECBI from
continuing its banking business and for placing it under receivership.

ISSUE:
Is the petition for prohibition must lie in MB?

HELD:
NO.
Vivas availed the wrong remedy. The resolution issued by MB placing the bank under receivership may not be
restrained or set aside except on a petition for certiorari.
Granting that a petition for prohibition is allowed, it is already an ineffective remedy. Prohibition is that process
by which a superior court prevents inferior courts, tribunals, officers, or persons from usurping or exercising a
jurisdiction with which they have not been vested by law, and confines them to the exercise of those powers legally
conferred.
The proper function of a writ of prohibition is to prevent the doing of an act which is about to be done. It is not
intended to provide a remedy for acts already accomplished.

DOCTRINE LEARNED:
Prohibition does not lie to restrain an act that is already happened or been decided before those affected hear
about it, leaving them with no option but to accept.
It is true that the issuance of writ of prohibition of under rule 65 of the rule of courts is under the jurisdiction of
Supreme Court, a petitioner should not immediately seek relief to the said court, because it is also under the competence
of the RTC and CA.