Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v.

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

G.R. No. 200678, June 4, 2018

Leonen, J.

A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation (PDIC). Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner bank which has been placed
under receivership is dismissible as it did not join PDIC as a party to the case.

FACTS
Petitioner bank has been placed under receivership when it filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme
Court. Said Petition was assailed by the respondent that contended that the same should be dismissed
outright for being led without Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's authority. It asserts that petitioner
was placed under receivership on March 17, 2011, and thus, petitioner's Executive Committee would
have had no authority to sign for or on behalf of petitioner absent the authority of its receiver, Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation. They also point out that both the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation Charter and Republic Act No. 7653 categorically state that the authority to file suits or retain
counsels for closed banks is vested in the receiver. Thus, the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping signed by petitioner's Executive Committee has no legal effect.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Banco Filipino, as a closed bank under receivership, could file this Petition for
Review without joining its statutory receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, as a party to
the case. NO.

Ruling:

A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation. Under Republic Act No. 7653, when the Monetary Board finds a bank insolvent, it
may "summarily and without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from doing business in the
Philippines and designate the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the banking
institution."

The relationship between the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation and a closed bank is fiduciary in
nature. Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 directs the receiver of a closed bank to "immediately gather
and take charge of all the assets and liabilities of the institution" and "administer the same for the benefit
of its creditors." The law likewise grants the receiver "the general powers of a receiver under the Revised
Rules of Court." Under Rule 59, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, "a receiver shall have the power to bring
and defend, in such capacity, actions in his [or her] own name." Thus, Republic Act No. 7653 provides
that the receiver shall also "in the name of the institution, and with the assistance of counsel as [it] may
retain, institute such actions as may be necessary to collect and recover accounts and assets of, or
defend any action against, the institution." Considering that the receiver has the power to take charge of
all the assets of the closed bank and to institute for or defend any action against it, only the receiver, in its
fiduciary capacity, may sue and be sued on behalf of the closed bank.

When petitioner was placed under receivership, the powers of its Board of Directors and its officers were
suspended. Thus, its Board of Directors could not have validly authorized its Executive Vice Presidents to
file the suit on its behalf. The Petition, not having been properly verified, is considered an unsigned
pleading. A defect in the certification of non-forum shopping is likewise fatal to petitioner's cause.
Considering that the Petition was led by signatories who were not validly authorized to do so, the Petition
does not produce any legal effect. Being an unauthorized pleading, this Court never validly acquired
jurisdiction over the case. The Petition, therefore, must be dismissed.