BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK,, petitioner, vs.

BANGKO
SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS and THE MONETARY BOARD,. respondent.

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

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.

HELD: 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.