I.
SHORT TITLE: BSP VS LEGASPI
II. FULL TITLE: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs Feliciano P. Legaspi - G.R. No.
205966, J. Peralta
III. TOPIC: New Central Bank Act - Monetary Board - Powers and Functions
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A Complaint for annulment of title, revocation of certificate and damages, with
application for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction was filed by petitioner BSP against
Secretary Jose L. Atienza, Jr., Luningning G. De Leon, Engr. Ramon C. Angelo, Jr., Ex-
Mayor Matilde A. Legaspi and respondent Feliciano P. Legaspi, the incumbent mayor of
Malolos, Bulacan, before the Malolos RTC.
On May 13, 2008, the RTC issued an Order mandating the issuance of preliminary
injunction, enjoining defendants Engr. Angelo, Jr. and Legaspi, and persons acting for
and, in their behalf, from pursuing the construction, development and/or operation of a
dumpsite or landfill in Barangay San Mateo, Norzagaray, Bulacan, in the property subject
of the complaint, covered by OCT No. P858/Free Patent No. 257917.
Legaspi filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over
the person of the petitioner BSP because the suit is unauthorized by BSP itself and that
the counsel representing BSP is not authorized and thus cannot bind the same petitioner.
In addition, Legaspi asserted that the complaint was initiated without the authority of the
Monetary Board and that the complaint was not prepared and signed by the OSG, the
statutory counsel of government agencies.
BSP opposed the Motion to Dismiss, and argued that the complaint was filed pursuant to
Monetary Board Resolution No. 8865, and that the complaint was verified by Geraldine
Alag, Director of Asset Management of the BSP, and authorized by Monetary Board
Resolutions No. 805 and 1005. BSP further claimed that it has the right to be represented
by a private counsel of its own choice.
V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:
The RTC denied the Motion to Dismiss, and ruled that it had acquired jurisdiction over
the person of the petitioner when the latter filed with the court the Complaint. More
importantly, it ruled that in suits involving the BSP, the Monetary Board may authorize
the Governor to represent it personally or through counsel, even a private counsel, and
the authority to represent the BSP may be delegated to any other officer thereof. It took
into account the fact that the BSP's complaint was verified by Geraldine C. Alag, an
officer of the BSP being the Director of its Asset Management Department and the
Secretary's Certificate issued by Silvina Q. Mamaril-Roxas, Officer-in-Charge, Office of
the Secretary of BSP's Monetary Board attesting to Monetary Board Resolution No. 900,
containing the Board's approval to engage the services of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and
Acorda Law Offices (OKMA Law).
The CA, however, set aside the orders of the RTC and dismissed the complaint of BSP.
On March 13, 2013, BSP thus filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45,
seeking to reverse and set aside the of the CA that reversed the Order of the Malolos
RTC.
VI. ISSUE:
Whether or not BSP lawfully engaged the services of a private counsel.
VII. RULING:
Yes. Indeed, the Secretary's Certificate submitted to the Court provides that the Board
approved the recommendation of the Asset Management Department (AMD) to engage
the services of Ongkiko Kalaw Manhit and Acorda Law Offices (OKMA Law) to act as
counsel, and as the true and lawful attorney-in-fact for the BSP in a complaint to be filed
against the DENR Secretary, et al., before the Malolos RTC, involving a BSP-acquired
property.
Thus, the filing of the instant suit and the engagement of the services of counsel are duly
authorized. It is significant to note that neither the Governor or General Counsel nor the
Monetary Board of BSP has come out to disown the authority given for the filing of the
instant suit and for the engagement of the services of BSP's counsel of record in this case.
VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Wherefore, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated March 13, 2013 of
petitioner Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is granted. Consequently, the Decision dated
August 15, 2012 and Resolution dated February 18, 2013 of the Court of Appeals
are reversed and set aside and the Orders dated January 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Malolos City, Bulacan, are affirmed.
