This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the closure of Union Bank by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
1) The former president of Union Bank alleged that BSP officials falsified reports to justify closing the bank. However, the Court found that BSP monitored Union Bank's worsening situation for over 15 years as it failed to meet capital requirements and had liquidity problems.
2) The Court ruled that BSP acted properly based on reports showing Union Bank's inability to pay liabilities. Under the law, BSP can close a bank without hearing if it cannot pay debts.
3) The Court determined BSP officials did not commit neglect of duty, as their
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the closure of Union Bank by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
1) The former president of Union Bank alleged that BSP officials falsified reports to justify closing the bank. However, the Court found that BSP monitored Union Bank's worsening situation for over 15 years as it failed to meet capital requirements and had liquidity problems.
2) The Court ruled that BSP acted properly based on reports showing Union Bank's inability to pay liabilities. Under the law, BSP can close a bank without hearing if it cannot pay debts.
3) The Court determined BSP officials did not commit neglect of duty, as their
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the closure of Union Bank by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).
1) The former president of Union Bank alleged that BSP officials falsified reports to justify closing the bank. However, the Court found that BSP monitored Union Bank's worsening situation for over 15 years as it failed to meet capital requirements and had liquidity problems.
2) The Court ruled that BSP acted properly based on reports showing Union Bank's inability to pay liabilities. Under the law, BSP can close a bank without hearing if it cannot pay debts.
3) The Court determined BSP officials did not commit neglect of duty, as their
G.R. No. 161276 | Supervision of BSP 1. The acts of the respondents is not characterized by simple or gross neglect of duty. Note: No explicit mention of power of supervision of BSP, but the case shows 2. The SES reports prepared submitted to the Monetary Board were a an example of how the monetary board and BSP supervise banks. compendium of long years of monitoring by BSP of a problem bank. It was assembled for over a period of 15 hours, thus, the data therein were patiently collected and analyzed. FACTS: 3. UB was being monitored since 1999. During this period, it was 1. Petitioner Teodoro Borlongan, the former president and CEO of Union observed that the bank could not meet the minimum capital Bank (UB) filed a complaint-affidavit with the Ombudsman alleging requirement (3.5 Billion) for a universal bank. Prior to its closure, it that: was bombarded by liquidity problems. It also declared a bank holiday a. the respondent officials of Bangko Sentral (BSP) falsified which is an indication of its decreasing ability to meet its obligations. statement of facts in the BSP Supervision and Examination 4. The reports reflected the fact that UB’s top management including Sector (SES) reports; and petitioner provided the BSP information that its situation is worsening. b. They tendered incorrect and inaccurate reports and opinions They also made constant reports showing that it was unable to pay its to conjure false grounds for the closure of UB and placing liabilities when they become due. them under receivership. 5. Under the New Central Bank Act, the monetary board can place a bank 2. The Ombudsman issued an order finding the respondents guilty of under receivership, summarily without hearing, upon a report of the simple neglect of duty. supervision and examination department of BSP. 3. Petitioner appealed to the CA questioning the ombudsman’s a. When a bank is unable to pay its liabilities as they become due absolution of the BSP governor and its general counsel (apparently in the ordinary course of business, the monetary board may there was a separate case for this one). He also sought the imposition summarily and without need for prior hearing forbid the of a graver penalty for the respondents. institution from doing business in the PH and designate the 4. The two petitions before the CA were not consolidated, and the CA PDIC as receiver. rendered conflicting decisions: 6. Based from above, it is clear that there was a valid reason for the a. 1st Decision (5th division): Included BSP governor; found Monetary Board to place UB under receivership. guilty for gross neglect of duty. 7. With respect to the administrative liability of the respondents, the b. 2nd decision (17th division): reversed the order of ombudsman Court held that the reports made were merely recommendatory and it finding the respondent officials of BSP guilty of simple is not the final action that creates the rights and duties which affects neglect of duty. the interest of third parties. What is actionable is not the report made 5. CA created a special division which amended the 1st decision to make but the decision of the monetary board to place UB under receivership. it uniform with the 2nd decision. In short, the BSP governor was absolved from liability. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE ISSUE: COURSE. SO ORDERED. 1. Whether the acts of respondent amounts to nglect of duty – NO.