BACOLOR vs.
BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK,
DAGUPAN CITY
G.R. No. 148491
February 8, 2007
FACTS:
On February 11, 1982, Spouses Zacarias and Catherine Bacolor
obtained a loan of P244,000.00 from Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank (BANCO FILIPINO). A promissory note was executed
stating that the amount shall be payable within a period of 10 years
with a monthly amortization of P5,380.00 beginning March 11, 1982.
The same stipulated that the interest rate shall be 24% per annum with
a penalty of 3% on any unpaid monthly amortization and a 3% service
charge per annum on the loan. A parcel of land with TCT no. 40827 was
mortgaged to secure the loan.
From March 11,1982 until July 10, 1991, petitioners paid the
respondent bank P412,199.13. From then on no other payment has
been made. A bank statement was then sent to the Spouses Bacolor
stating that their indebtedness amounts to P840,845.61.
The spouses’ failure to pay prompted the Bank to institute an action for
extra judicial foreclosure of mortgage.
A month prior, on February 1, 1993, petitioners filed a complaint for
violation of the Usury Law against the respondent bank alleging that the
promisory note constitute a usurious transaction. An amended
complaint was filed by the Bacolor Spouses alleging during the closure
of the respondent bank (January 1, 1985- July 1, 1994) it lost its
function as a banking institution and therefore could no longer charge
interest and institute foreclosure proceedings.
In 1994 the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint of the
Spouses. Ruling that the 24% stipulated interest was not in violation of
the USURY law and that the CLOSURE OF BANCO FILIPINO DID NOT
SUSPEND OR STOP ITS USUAL AND NORMAL BANKING OPERATIONS
LIKE COLLECTION OF LOAN RECEIVABLES AND FORCLOSURE OF
MORTGAGES.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the banks’s closure diminished the authority and
powers of the designated liquidator to effectuate and carry on the
administration of the bank
HELD:
No. In the case of Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs.
Monetary Board, Central Bank of the Philippines, the Supreme Court ruled
that the bank’s closure did not thus diminished the authority and powers of
the designated liquidator to effectuate and carry on the administration of the
bank
The Supreme Court did not prohibit however acts such as receiving
collectibles and receivables or paying off creditors’ claims and other
transactions pertaining to the normal operations of a bank. There is no doubt
that that the prosecution of suits for collection and the foreclosure of
mortgages against debtors of the bank by the liquidator are among the usual
and ordinary transactions pertaining to the administration of a bank.
Hence the banks’s closure did not diminish the authority and
powers of the designated liquidator to effectuate and carry on the
administration of the bank.
NOTES:
THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE TOPIC OF BANKS IN DISTRESS.
WHENEVER A BANK IS IN DISTRESS THE BSP MAY PERFORM ANY OF
THE THREE SOLUTIONS TO AID THE BANK:
1. GRANT AN EMERGENCY LOAN
2. APPOINT A CONSERVATOR
a. Take charge of the assets, liabilities and management
b. Reorganize the management of the bank
c. Collect monies and debts due said bank
d. Exercise all powers necessary to restore viability
3. APPOINT A RECEIVER AND ORDER THE LIQUIDATION OF
THE BANK
a. Subject to the control of the court in which the action
or proceeding is pending a receiver shall have the
power to bring and defend, in such capacity, actions
in his own name; to take and keep possession of the
property in controversy; to receive rents; to collect
debts due to himself as receiver or to the fund,
property, estate, person, or corporation of which he
is the receiver; to compound for and compromise the
same; to make transfers; to pay outstanding debts;
to divide the money and other property that shall
remain among the persons legally entitled to receive
the same; and generally to do such acts respecting
the property as the court may authorize. However,
funds in the hands of a receiver may be invested only
by order of the court upon the written consent of all
the parties to the action. (7a)
If the receiver determines that the institution cannot be rehabilitated, the
monetary board shall notify in writing the board of directors of its findings
and direct the receiver to proceed with the liquidation.
