Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
Article 1173. The fault or negligence of the obligor
consist in the omission of that diligence which is
required by the nature of the obligation and
August, 1982: Osmundo S. Canlas executed a corresponds with the circumstances of the persons,
Special Power of Attorney authorizing Vicente of the time and of the place. When negligence shows
Maosca to mortgage 2 parcels of land situated in bad faith, the provisions of articles 1171 and 2201,
BF Homes Paranaque in the name of his wife paragraph 2, shall apply
Angelina Canlas.
The degree of diligence required of banks is more
Subsequently, Osmundo Canlas agreed to sell the than that of a good father of a family
lands to Maosca for P850K, P500K payable within
1 week, and the balance serves as his investment in not even a single identification card was exhibited by
the business. Maosca issued 2 checks P40K and the said impostors to show their true identity
P460K. The P460K lacked sufficient funds.
acted simply on the basis of the residence
September 3, 1982: Maosca mortgage to Atty. certificates bearing signatures which tended to
Manuel Magno the parcels of lands for P100K with match the signatures affixed on a previous deed of
the help of impostors who misrepresented mortgage to Atty. Magno
themselves as the Spouses Canlas.
previous deed of mortgage did not bear the tax
September 29, 1982: Maosca was granted a loan account number of the spouses as well as the
by the respondent Asian Savings Bank (ASB) for Community Tax Certificate of Angelina Canlas
P500K with the parcels of land as security and with
the help of the same impostors. The loan was left doctrine of last clear chance
unpaid resulting in a extrajudicially foreclosure on the where both parties are negligent but the negligent
lots. act of one is appreciably later in point of time than
that of the other, or where it is impossible to
determine whose fault or negligence brought about
the occurrence of the incident, the one who had the involving banking transactions; highest
last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm degree of diligence is required for
but failed to do so, is chargeable with the banks.
consequences arising therefrom
Supervening Negligence: Failing to perform the The check was cleared by respondent and
petitioner credited the account of MMGI. On October
simple expedient of faithfully complying with the 22, 2002, MMGIs account was closed and all the
requirements for banks to ascertain the identity of funds therein were withdrawn. A month later, Silva
the persons transacting with them - ASB bears the discovered the debit of P1,000,000.00 from his
loss account. In response to Silvas complaint,
respondent credited his account with the aforesaid
Canlas went to ASB with Maosca and he was sum.
introduced as Leonardo Rey. He didn't correct
Maosca. However, he did not know that the lots On March 21, 2003, respondent returned a
were being used as a security for he was there to photocopy of the check to petitioner for the reason:
Postdated. Petitioner, however, refused to accept
make sure that Maosca pays his debt so he cannot
and sent back to respondent a photocopy of the
be estopped from assailing the validity of the check. Thereafter, the check, or more accurately, the
mortgage Charge Slip, was tossed several times from
petitioner to respondent, and back to petitioner, until
But being negligent in believing the on May 6, 2003, respondent requested the PCHC to
misrepresentation by Maosca that he had other lots take custody of the check. PCHC likewise
and that the lot were not to be used as a security, encouraged respondent to submit the controversy for
Canlas was negligent and undeserving of Attorney's resolution thru the PCHC Arbitration Mechanism.
fees.
However, it was petitioner who filed a complaint
the contract of mortgage sued upon was entered into before the Arbitration Committee, asserting that
and signed by impostors who misrepresented respondent should solely bear the entire face value
of the check due to its negligence in failing to return
themselves as the spouses Osmundo Canlas and the check to petitioner within the 24-hour
Angelina Canlas = complete nullity. reglementary period as provided in Section 20.1 of
the Clearing House Rules and Regulations8 (CHRR)
2000. Petitioner prayed that respondent be ordered
to reimburse the sum of P500,000.00 with 12%
Allied Banking Corporation vs. Bank of the interest per annum, and to pay attorneys fees and
Philippine Islands other arbitration expenses.
G.R. No. 188363. February 27, 2013
In its Answer with Counterclaims, respondent
Tort; Doctrine of Last Clear Chance; charged petitioner with gross negligence for
definition and characteristics; accepting the post-dated check in the first place. It
contributory negligence; definition; contended that petitioners admitted negligence was
effect; apportionment of damages the sole and proximate cause of the loss.
between parties who are both negligent
may be awarded to the private respondent under
Article 2179 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
Thus, the fact that the funds in deposit with BPI- 4. The spouses presented a PNP Document
FB under the name of Buenaventura, et al. were Examiner expert who analysed the signature and
allegedly derived exclusively from the alleged concluded that the signature was forged, hence the
P80,000,000.00 unlawfully transferred from the funds discrepancy between the signature of the impostor
of FMIC or that the deposit under the name of and the one written in the signature cards held by the
bank.
Tevesteco consisted allegedly exclusively of the said
P80,000,000.00 debited from FMICs account is 4. The trial court ruled in favor of the spouses
immaterial. These circumstances cannot be used Cabamongan, held the bank negligent and awarded
against a party not privy to the forgery. xxx actual, moral and exemplary damages. The bank
appealed to the CA which affirmed the lower court's
decision. Both parties filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the SC where the petitioner insisted
Citybank N.A. vs. Cabamongan 488 SCRA 517 that it Carmela who preterminated the TD despite
Digest claims to the contrary, while the Cabamongan
Citybank v. Cabamongan spouses contended that Citybank's negligence was
488 SCRA 517 established by evidence.
G.R. No. 146918 May 2, 2006
Ponente: Austria-Martinez, J.: Issue: Whether or not the bank is negligent and
therefor should be held liable when it allowed the
Bank negligent pretermination of the TD in favor of the impostor
Facts: HELD:
YES. The bank was indeed negligent as it failed to
1. The Cabamongan spouses Luis and Carmelita are exercise the highest degree of care and diligence
both based in California, USA. The spouses opened required of it. The banking business is impressed
a foreign currency time deposit account for their with public interest and of paramount importance
children with petitioner CityBank with a 180-day thereto is the trust and confidence of the public in
term. An impostor who claimed to be Carmelita (wife) general. The Court has held that the bank "is bound
succeeded to preterminate the time deposit after to know the signatures of its customers; and if it pays
presenting passport, credit card and other a forged check, it must be considered as making
identification. payment out of its own funds, and cannot ordinarily
charge the amount so paid to the account of the
2. The bank personnel who attended to the depositor whose name was forged." (San Carlos
transaction ignored several red flags which could Milling Ltd. vs. BPI)
have alerted the bank as to the real identity of the
person claiming to be 'Carmelita'. For one, she failed It has been sufficiently shown that the signatures of
to present the certificate of time deposit, there was Carmelita in the pretermination were forged. The
also a discrepancy in her signature with that in the petitioner, even with its signature verification
signature cards of the bank. Finally, the photo in the procedure failed to detect the forgeries. Citybank
bank's file did not look like this person claiming to be cannot label its negligence as mere error. For not
Carmelita. Despite all these irregularities, the bank exercising the degree of diligence required of
went through with the transaction, which only took 40 banking institutions, it is liable for damages.
minutes. The document waiver which the impostor
signed was also not notarized, as required under
bank's procedures.
EQUITABLE PCI BANK V. ARCELITO B. TAN
G.R. NO. 165339 AUGUST 23, 2010 down to the last centavo, and as promptly as
possible. This has to be done if the account is to
FACTS: reflect at any given time the amount of money the
Respondent Arcelito B.Tan maintained a depositor can dispose of as he sees fit, confident
current and savings account with petitioner Equitable that the bank will deliver it as and to whomever he
PCI Bank. On May 13, 1992, Tan issued PCIB Check directs.
No. 275100 postdated May 30, 1992 in the amount The bank on which the check is drawn,
of P34,588.72 in favor of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. As of known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability to
May 14, 1992, respondent's balance with PCIB was pay to the order of the payee in accordance with the
P35,147.59. On May 14, 1992, Sulpicio Lines, Inc. drawers instructions as reflected on the face and by
deposited the aforesaid check to its account with the terms of the check. Thus, payment made before
Solid Bank, Carbon Branch, Cebu City. After the date specified by the drawer is clearly against the
clearing, the amount of the check was immediately drawee bank's duty to its client.
debited by PCIB from Tan's account leaving him with
a balance of only P558.87. However, from May 9 to ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT PCIB ACTED
16, 1992, Tan issued three checks, specifically: PCIB NEGLIGENTLY IN DEALING WITH TANS
Check No. 275080 dated May 9, 1992, payable to ACCOUNT.
Agusan del Sur Electric Cooperative Inc. (ASELCO)
for the amount of P6,427.68; PCIB Check No. DECISION OF THE RTC:
275097 dated May 10, 1992 payable to Agusan del The RTC ruled in favor of PCIB, holding that
Norte Electric Cooperative Inc., (ANECO) for the it did not act negligently and dismissed the
amount of P6,472.01; and PCIB Check No. 314104 complaint. Tan appealed.
dated May 16, 1992 payable in cash for the amount
of P10,000.00. Thus, when presented for payment, DECISION OF THE CA:
the three checks were dishonored for being drawn The CA reversed the decision of RTC and
against insufficient funds. As a result of the directed PCIB to pay respondent the sum of
dishonored checks payable to ASELCO and ANECO, P1,864,500.00 actual damages, P50,000.00 moral
the electric power supply for the two mini-sawmills damages, P50,000.00 exemplary damages and
owned and operated by Tan was cut off and was attorney's fees of P30,000.00.
restored only after several days. This prompted Tan PCIB filed a motion for reconsideration, which
to file with the RTC of Cebu a complaint against the CA denied.
PCIB for the payment of losses consisting of
unrealized income together with other claims, SC RULING:
contending that Check No. 275100 was a postdated The SC affirmed with modifications the
check in payment of Bills of Lading Nos. 15, 16 and decision of CA, holding that PCIB acted negligently.
17, and that his account with PCIB would have had However, the award of moral damages was deleted
sufficient funds to cover payment of the three other and added the award of temperate damages.
checks were it not for the negligence of the bank in The Court had already imposed on banks the
immediately debiting from his account Check No. same high standard of diligence required under R.A.
275100, in the amount of P34,588.72, even as the 8791 at the time of the untimely debiting of Tan's
said check was postdated to May 30, 1992. PCIB, on account by PCIB. In Simex International (Manila),
the other hand, averred that the questioned check Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that as a
was postdated May 30, 1992 and claimed that it was business affected with public interest and because of
a current check dated May 3, 1992. The bank the nature of its functions, the bank is under
alleged that the disconnection of the electric supply obligation to treat the accounts of its depositors with
to respondent's sawmills was not due to the dishonor meticulous care, always having in mind the fiduciary
of the checks, but for other reasons not attributable nature of their relationship. The diligence required of
to the bank. banks, therefore, is more than that of a good father
of a family. In every case, the depositor expects the
DOCTRINE/LAWS RELATED TO THE CASE: bank to treat his account with the utmost fidelity,
The diligence required of banks is more than whether such account consists only of a few hundred
that of a good father of a family. In every case, the pesos or of millions. The bank must record every
depositor expects the bank to treat his account with single transaction accurately, down to the last
the utmost fidelity, whether such account consists centavo, and as promptly as possible. This has to be
only of a few hundred pesos or of millions. The bank done if the account is to reflect at any given time the
must record every single transaction accurately, amount of money the depositor can dispose of as he
sees fit, confident that the bank will deliver it as and 6. On November 16, 1992, Garin called up Ofelia to
to whomever he directs. inform her that the check had already been
Based on the facts, it is clear that PCIB did cleared. The following day, PNB Buendia, after
not exercise the degree of diligence that it ought to deducting the bank charges, credited $299,248.37 to
have exercised in dealing with its client. the account of the spouses Cheah.
Furthermore, the bank on which the check is drawn,
known as the drawee bank, is under strict liability to
7. Acting on Adelinas instruction to withdraw the
pay to the order of the payee in accordance with the
credited amount. Filipina received all the proceeds.
drawers instructions as reflected on the face and by
the terms of the check. Thus, payment made before
the date specified by the drawer is clearly against the 8. In the meantime, the Cable Division of PNB Head
drawee bank's duty to its client. As such, the Court Office received on November 16, 1992 a
finds that PCIBs negligence is the proximate cause SWIFT message from Philadelphia, informing PNB
of Tans loss. of the return of the check for insufficient
funds. However, the PNB Head Office could not
ascertain to which branch/office it should forward the
same for proper action.
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK vs. SPOUSES
CHEAH CHEE CHONG and OFELIA CAMACHO 9. After a few days, PNB Head Office ascertained
CHEAH that the SWIFT message was intended for PNB
Buendia Branch.
1. On November 4, 1992, Ofelia Cheah and her
friend Adelina Guarin were having a conversation in 10. Informed about the bounced check and upon
the latters office when Adelinas friend, Filipina demand by PNB Buendia to return the money
Tuazon, approached her to ask if she could have withdrawn, Ofelia immediately contacted Filipina to
Filipinas check cleared and encashed for a service get the money back. But the latter told her that all the
fee of 2.5%. money had already been given to several people
who asked for the checks encashment. Criminal
2. The check was Bank of America Check No. 190 charges were then filed against these suspect
drawn by Atty. Rosales against Bank of America beneficiaries.
California, USA, with a face amount of $300,000.00,
payable to cash. 11. Subsequently, PNB sent a demand letter to
spouses Cheah for the return of the amount of the
3. Because Adelina does not have a dollar account, check, froze their peso and dollar deposits, and filed
she asked Ofelia if she could accommodate Filipinas a complaint against them for Sum of Money with the
request since she has a joint dollar savings account RTC. In said complaint, PNB demanded payment of
with her husband Cheah Chee Chong with PNB around P8,202,220.44, plus interests and attorneys
Buendia Branch. fees.
4. Ofelia agreed. They met with the Loans 12. The RTC ruled in PNBs favor. It held that
Department who referred them to PNB Division Chief spouses Cheah were guilty of contributory
Garin. Garin discussed with them the process of negligence. While the CA recognized the spouses
clearing the check and they were told that it normally Cheah as victims of a scam who nevertheless have
takes 15 days. Assured that the deposit and to suffer the consequences of Ofelias lack of care
subsequent clearance of the check is a normal and prudence in immediately trusting a stranger, the
transaction, Ofelia deposited Filipinas check. appellate court did not hold PNB scot-free. It
declared both parties equally negligent and should
5. PNB then sent it for clearing through its suffer and shoulder the loss.
correspondent bank, Philadelphia National Bank. 5
days later, PNB received a credit advice from ISSUE: Whether PNB should be held liable.
Philadelphia that the proceeds of the subject check
had been temporarily credited to PNBs account as HELD: PNBs act of releasing the proceeds of the
of November 6, 1992. check prior to the lapse of the 15-day clearing period
was the proximate cause of the loss.
Ofelia deposited the subject check on November 4, engaged in banking, holds itself out to the public as
1992. Hence, the 15th banking day from the date of the expert on this field, and the law thus holds it to a
said deposit should fall on November 25, 1992. high standard of conduct." A bank is expected to be
However, what happened was that PNB Buendia, an expert in banking procedures and it has the
upon calling up Ofelia that the check had been necessary means to ascertain whether a check, local
cleared, allowed the proceeds thereof to be or foreign, is sufficiently funded.
withdrawn on November 17 and 18, 1992, a week
before the lapse of the standard 15-day clearing Incidentally, PNB obliges the spouses Cheah to
period. return the withdrawn money under the principle of
solutio indebiti.
This Court already held that the payment of the
amounts of checks without previously clearing them In the case at bench, PNB cannot recover the
with the drawee bank especially so where the proceeds of the check under the principle it invokes.
drawee bank is a foreign bank and the amounts 1st, the gross negligence of PNB, can never be
involved were large is contrary to normal or ordinary equated with a mere mistake of fact, which must be
banking practice. Also, in Associated Bank v. something excusable and which requires the
Tan, wherein the bank allowed the withdrawal of the exercise of prudence. No recovery is due if the
value of a check prior to its clearing, we said that mistake done is one of gross negligence.
"[b]efore the check shall have been cleared for
deposit, the collecting bank can only assume at its The spouses Cheah are guilty of contributory
own risk x x x that the check would be cleared and negligence and are bound to share the loss with the
paid out." bank. "Contributory negligence is conduct on the part
of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to
The delay in the receipt by PNB Buendia of the the harm he has suffered, which falls below the
SWIFT message notifying it of the dishonor is of no standard to which he is required to conform for his
moment, because had PNB Buendia waited for the own protection."
expiration of the clearing period and had never
released during that time the proceeds of the check, The fact that the check was cleared after only eight
it would have already been duly notified of its banking days from the time it was deposited or
dishonor. Clearly, PNBs disregard of its preventive contrary to what Garin told her that clearing takes 15
and protective measure against the possibility of days should have already put Ofelia on guard. She
being victimized by bad checks had brought upon should have first verified the regularity of such hasty
itself the injury of losing a significant amount of clearance considering that if something goes wrong
money. with the transaction, it is she and her husband who
would be put at risk and not the accommodated
It bears stressing that "the diligence required of party. Thus, we are one with the CA in ruling that
banks is more than that of a Roman pater familias or Ofelias prior consultation with PNB officers is not
a good father of a family. The highest degree of enough to totally absolve her of any liability
diligence is expected." PNB miserably failed to do its
duty of exercising extraordinary diligence and In any case, the complaint against the spouses
reasonable business prudence. The disregard of its Cheah could not be dismissed. As PNBs client,
own banking policy amounts to gross negligence, Ofelia was the one who dealt with PNB and
which the law defines as "negligence characterized negotiated the check such that its value was credited
by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to in her and her husbands account. Being the ones in
act in a situation where there is duty to act, not privity with PNB, the spouses Cheah are therefore
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a the persons who should return to PNB the money
conscious indifference to consequences in so far as released to them.
other persons may be affected." With regard to
collection or encashment of checks, suffice it to say All told, the Court concurs with the findings of the CA
that the law imposes on the collecting bank the duty that PNB and the spouses Cheah are equally
to scrutinize diligently the checks deposited with it for negligent and should therefore equally suffer the
the purpose of determining their genuineness and loss. The two must both bear the consequences of
regularity. "The collecting bank, being primarily their mistakes.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petitions favors the plaintiff Poblete. Hence, this petition.
for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 170865 and in ISSUE: WON the CA erred in upholding the finding
G.R. No. 170892 are both DENIED. The assailed of the trial court declaring the TCT No. T-20151 as
August 22, 2005 Decision and December 21, 2005 null and void. Held : The petition is meritorious. It is
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV well-entrenched rule, as applied, by the CA, that a
No. 63948 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto. forged or fraudulent deed is a nullity and conveys no
title. Moreover, where the deed of sale states that the
purchase price has been paid but in fact has never
been, the deed is void ab initio for lack of
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Barbara Sampaga consideration. Since the deed, is void, the title is also
Poblete; G.R. No. 196577. February 25, 2013 On void. Since the land title has been declared void by
October 1997, respondent Poblete obtained a loan final judgment, the Real Estate Mortgage over it is
worth P300k from Kapantay Multi-Purpose. She also void. It is essential that the mortgagor be the
mortgaged her Lot No.29 located in Buenavista, absolute owner of the mortgage; otherwise, the
Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, under OCT No. P- mortgage is void. The doctrine the mortgagee in
12026. Kapantay, in turn, used OCT No. P-12026 as good faith as a rule does not apply to banks which
collateral under its Loan Account No. 97-OC-013 are required to observe a higher standard of
with Land Bank-Sablayan Branch. After a year, diligence. A bank cannot assume that, simply
Poblete instructed her son-in-law Domingo Balen to because the title offered as security is on its face,
look for a buyer for the Lot No. 29 in order to pay her free of any encumbrances or lien, it is relieved of the
loan and he referred Angelito Joseph Maniego. Both responsibility of taking further steps to verify the title
parties agreed that the lot shall amount to P 900k but and inspect the properties to be mortgage. The
in order to reduce taxes they will execute a P 300k records do not even show that Land Bank
agreed price appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale investigated and inspected the actual occupants.
dated November 9, 1998. In the Deed, Poblete Land Bank merely mentioned Maniegos loan
specifically described herself as a widow. Balen, application upon his presentation of OCT No. P-
then, delivered the Deed to Maniego. Instead of 12026, which was still under the name of Poblete.
paying the price, Maniego promised in an affidavit Land Bank even ignored the fact that Kapantay
dated November 19, 1998 stating that the said previously used Pobletes title as collateral in its loan
amount will be deposited to her Land Bank Savings account with Land Bank. Furthermore, only one day
Account but he failed to do so. On August 1999, after Maniego obtained TCT No. P-20151 under his
Maniego paid Kapantays Loan Account for name, Land Bank and Maniego executed a Credit
P448,202.08 and on subsequent year he applied for Line Agreement and Real Mortgage. It appears that
a loan worth P1M from Land Bank using OCT No. P- Maniegos loan was already completely processed
12026 as a collateral with a condition that the title while the collateral was still in the name of Poblete.
must be first transferred on his name. On August 14, Where said mortgagee acted with haste in granting
2000, the Registry of Deeds issued TCT No. T-20151 the mortgage loan and did not ascertain the
in Maniegos name pursuant to a Deed of Absolute ownership of the land being mortgaged, it cannot be
Sale with the signatures of Mrs. Poblete and her considered innocent mortgagee. The pari delicto rule
husband dated August 11, 2000 and Maniego provides when two parties are equally at fault, the
successfully availed the Credit Line Agreement for law leaves them as they are and denies recovery by
P1M and a Real Estate Mortgage over TCT No. T- either one of them. This court adopt the decisions of
20151 on August 15, 2000. On November 2002, RTC and CA that only Maniego is at fault. Finally, on
Land Bank filed an Application for an Extra-judicial the issue of estoppels and laches, such question
Foreclosure against the said Mortgage stating that were not raised before the trial court. It is settled that
Maniego failed to pay his loan. Poblete filed a an issue which are neither alleged in the complaint
complaint for nullification of the Deed of Sale dated nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for the
August 11, 2000 and TCT No. T-20151, time on appeal. The issue on the nullity of Maniegos
Reconveyance of the Title and Damages with a title had already been foreclosed when this Court
Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or denied Maniegos petition for review in the
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction against Resolution dated 13 July 2011, which became final
Maniego, Landbank and the Register of Deeds. The and executory on 19 January 2012. It is settled that a
judgment of RTC, affirmed by the CA upon appeal, decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be but they gave written authority
modified in any respect, even if the modification is
to Citytrust to automatically transfer funds from
meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law
and whether it will be made by the court that their Savings Account to their Current Account at
rendered it or by the highest court of the land. This is any time whenever the funds in their current
without prejudice, however, to the right of Maniego to account were insufficient to meet withdrawals
recover from Poblete what he paid to Kapantay for from said current account = pre-authorized
the account of Poblete, otherwise there will be unjust
enrichment by Poblete. transfer (PAT) agreement
December 12, 1983: Librada Moran drew a
check for P50,576.00 payable to
Petrophil Corporation
December 13, 1983: Librada Moran, issued
Negotiable Instruments Case Digest: Moran V. CA another check in the amount of P56,090.00 in
favor of the same corporation
And Citytrust Bank (1994) December 14, 1983: Petrophil Corporation
deposited the 2 checks to its account with the
G.R. No. 105836 March 7, 1994
Pandacan branch of the Philippine National Bank
Lessons Applicable: Promissory notes and checks (PNB), the collecting bank.
(Negotiable Instruments Law) PNB presented them for clearing with
the Philippine Clearing House Corporation in the
afternoon of the same day
Records shows:
FACTS: Current Account had a zero
Initially, we will discuss the procedural issue. First, we resolve the prayer to nullify the CAs
April 18, 2005 Resolution.
Arcenas, et al. argue that Korugas petition should We hold that the Petition in G.R. No. 168332 has
be dismissed for its defective Verification and become moot and academic. The writ of preliminary
Certification Against Forum-Shopping, since only a injunction being questioned had effectively been dissolved
facsimile of the same was attached to the Petition. They by the CAs July 20, 2005 Decision. The dispositive
also claim that the Verification and Certification Against portion of the Decision reads in part:
Forum-Shopping, allegedly executed
in Seattle, Washington, was not authenticated in the The case is REMANDED to the
court a quo for further proceedings and to
manner prescribed by Philippine law and not certified by
resolve with deliberate dispatch the intra-
the Philippine Consulate in the United States. corporate controversies and determine
whether there was actually a valid service
of summons. If, after hearing, such
This contention deserves scant consideration. service is found to have been improper,
then new summons should be served
forthwith.[20]
On the last page of the Petition in G.R. No.
168332, Korugas counsel executed an Undertaking, which
reads as follows: Accordingly, there is no necessity to restrain the
implementation of the writ of preliminary injunction
In view of that fact that the issued by the CA on April 18, 2005, since it no longer
Petitioner is currently in the United
States, undersigned counsel is attaching a exists.
Governments responsibility to see to it that the financial
However, this Court finds that the CA erred in interests of those who deal with banks and banking
upholding the jurisdiction of, and remanding the case to, institutions, as depositors or otherwise, are protected. In
the RTC. this country, that task is delegated to the BSP, which
pursuant to its Charter, is authorized to administer the
The resolution of these petitions rests mainly on monetary, banking, and credit system of the Philippines. It
the determination of one fundamental issue: Which body is further authorized to take the necessary steps against
has jurisdiction over the Koruga Complaint, the RTC or any banking institution if its continued operation would
the BSP? cause prejudice to its depositors, creditors and the general
public as well.[23]
We hold that it is the BSP that has jurisdiction
over the case. The law vests in the BSP the supervision over
operations and activities of banks. The New Central Bank
A reexamination of the Complaint is in order. Act provides: