EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-70054. July 8, 1986.]

BANCO FILIPINO , petitioner, vs. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL. ,

respondents.

Ramon Quisumbing and Norberto Quisumbing and Emmanuel Pelaez for

petitioner.
Iñigo B. Regalado, Jr. counsel for Central Bank.
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez for respondents.

RESOLUTION

On November 4, 1985, Petitioner Bank led in the instant case, a "Motion to

Pay Back Salaries to All BF O cers and Employees from February to August 29,
1985" in connection with its "Opposition to Respondents' Motion for
Reconsideration or for Clari cation of the Resolution of the Court En Banc of
October 8, 1985." On November 7, 1985, this Court referred said motion to pay
back salaries to Branch 136 (Judge Ricardo Francisco, presiding) of the Makati
Regional Trial Court, which this Court had earlier directed under our Resolution of
October 8, 1985 issued in G.R. No. 70054, to conduct hearings on the matter of
the closure of petitioner Bank and its alleged pre-planned liquidation.
On January 22, 1986, said Regional Trial Court, after considering the
petitioner's motion of November 4, 1985, the respondents' opposition thereto
dated January 15, 1986; the petitioner's Reply dated January 16, 1986, and the
respondents' Rejoinder dated January 20, 1986, issued an order directing the
respondents herein "to pay all o cers and employees of petitioner their back
salaries and wages corresponding to the period from February to August 29,
1985."
On February 4, 1986, respondents herein led with this Court an "Appeal
from, or Petition to Set Aside, order to Pay Back Salaries dated 22 January 1986"
praying for the reversal and setting aside of the aforestated trial court's Order
dated January 22, 1986. This was formally opposed by Petitioner when it led its
"Answer to Appeal (re: back salaries)" on February 26, 1986. A month later, on
March 26, 1986, respondents led their "Reply to the Answer" which petitioner
traversed in a "Rejoinder to the Reply" dated April 2, 1986.
In a normal situation, no controversy would be expected in the matter of the
payment of said back salaries because in the instant case, the party praying for the
same is the employer Bank. The attendant circumstances here present have,
however, created a peculiar situation. There is resistance to the claim because the
management of the assets of the Bank has been transferred to the Respondents'
Receiver who perceived that the directive to pay back salaries after closure of the
Bank would be dissipation of the bank's assets to the prejudice of its various
creditors.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 There is, however, in this case a signi cant matter that deserves
consideration of this Court and which must be viewed from the stand-point of
equity. What stands out is that, regardless of whether the employees of Banco
Filipino worked or not after January 25, 1985, there is the uncontested
manifestation found in BF's Answer to the Appeal, dated February 26, 1986 (Vol. IV
of Case Records) that:
"2. In the fact the receiver/liquidator Carlota Valenzuela had paid
Union employees of petitioner BF back salaries for no work from January 25,
1985 up to June, 1985. . ." (Emphasis Supplied)
All employees, therefore, of petitioner Banco Filipino who have not yet
received their back salaries corresponding to the period from January 25, 1985 up
to June, 1985 manifestly deserve and ought to be similarly paid by the respondent
Monetary Board. It is but fair that the issue whether or not the employees of
petitioner Bank had actually worked during said period should now be discounted
considering this voluntary act of respondent Monetary Board which would remove
by estoppel any impediment to the receipt by all bank employees of their back
salaries from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985, assuming that some of them
have not yet received the same.
As the remaining period from June, 1985 to August, 1985, involves but a
minimal period only of two (2) months, and considering the unfortunate plight of
the numerous employees who now invoke the sympathetic concern of this Court,
and inasmuch as the appealed Order for the payment of back salaries is only for a
limited period or up to August, 1985, the appealed order of November 7, 1985 may
be sustained.
Petitioner BF and its stockholders have long put on record their consent to
this payment of back salaries of its separated o cers and employees. It is also
averred that BF intends to reopen its bank and branches, and the payment of back
salaries to its employees, no less would help in the preservation of its personnel
which is the bank's most important asset, apart from doing justice to those
aggrieved employees. It is mentioned that the Central Bank Liquidator has now
more than a billion pesos in cash of Banco Filipino since it continued to receive
payments from BF borrowers some P1.5 million a day. It is also said that with the
deposits of petitioner BF with the Bank of PI, there is money su cient to allow the
withdrawal of the sums needed to pay the salaries of the employees who have
been now out of work for over a year. Apparently, no substantial prejudice will be
incurred by the parties to this case by providing for the payment of the distressed
employees of the bank for only a speci ed limited period until the other issues in
the consolidated cases are fully resolved.
On the other hand, the said plight of these employees of the Banco Filipino
can be readily realized and indeed, should deserve utmost liberal consideration.
WHEREFORE, ruling that the Order of November 7, 1985 of Judge Ricardo
Francisco, granting salary to the o cers and employees of Banco Filipino for the
period from February, 1985 to August 29, 1985, may now be deemed moot and
academic insofar as it relates to the period from January 25, 1985 to June, 1985
and as the remaining period, which is from June, 1985 up to August, 1985, covers
but a minimal span of two (2) months, the Court RESOLVES, for reasons of equity,
to allow the aforestated Order to remain undisturbed and to DISMISS the appeal
therefrom. This Order is immediately held executory. ( Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no
part.)
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com