In its 45-page decision penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, the CA’s Special 13th Division granted the petition of the BSP and the MB seeking to annul the orders issued by Judge Joselito Villarosa, presiding judge of Branch 66, Makati RTC, on Oct. 28, 2010 and Nov. 18, 2010.
The Makati RTC, in its Oct. 28, 2010 order, issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the BSP and the MB from “employing acts inimical to the enforcement of Banco Filipino’s approved business plan” and from enforcing other regulatory measures that are intended to coerce the bank in agreeing to withdraw its suits against the BSP and MB.
In its Nov. 18, 2010 order, the court granted Banco Filipino’s application for a writ of preliminary mandatory and preventive injunction and directed BSP and MB to immediately implement the bank’s business plan by releasing its P25-billion financial- assistance package and other regulatory relief without delay.
The appellate court, however, held that the injunction was issued with grave abuse of discretion considering that it was issued in violation of law and public policy.
The CA noted that the impropriety of issuing a TRO against BSP and the MB in the exercise of regulatory procedure, had been settled by the Supreme Court in BSP v. Antonio-Valenzuela, where it held that the issuance by the RTC of writs of preliminary injunction is an unwarranted interference with the powers of MB.
“For lack of jurisdiction, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, is directed to stop and desist from continuing with the proceedings of Civil Case No. 10-1042, other hand to dismiss the said case,” the CA ruled.
Likewise, the appellate court agreed with the BSP and MB that there was violation of their rights to due process as the TRO was issued by Villarosa despite the lack of evidence supporting the same, as well as Banco Filipino’s failure to post a bond.
“We agree with the petitioner. It appears that there was an undue haste in issuing the assailed order that public respondent missed the fact that it failed to fix bond, and only after the approval of the required bond should a writ of preliminary injunction be issued,” CA said.
Furthermore, the CA did not give credence to the contention of Banco Filipino that it merely relied on the Supreme Court’s decision dated Dec. 11, 1991, as its basis in seeking the issuance of a TRO.
Court records showed that the TRO and the injunctive order arose from a petition filed by Banco Filipino with the Makati RTC for the release of the P25 billion worth of financial assistance from the BSP.
In their petition, BF claimed that they are entitled to the release of the financial assistance based on the 1991 decision of the SC which ordered the reopening and reorganization of BF from its closure way back in 1985.
The CA said that based on its scrutiny of the said SC decision, there is nothing in it that directed the BSP and MB to grant financial assistance and other regulatory reliefs to the bank.
“To be sure, the Supreme Court did not intend to dictate how Banco Filipino should be reorganized and what petitioners should do under the premises in the process of reorganizing Banco Filipino,” it added. Concurring with the ruling were Associate Justices Manuel Barrios and Juan Enriquez Jr.
Earlier, the CA had denied the petition filed by Banco Filipino stockholders to stop the implementation of MB Resolution 372-A issued on March 17, 2011 that placed the savings bank under receivership and stopped its operations nationwide.
