33 - Vivas v. Monetary Board G.R. No. 191424 2013
33 - Vivas v. Monetary Board G.R. No. 191424 2013
FACTS:
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
status quo ante order or writ of preliminary injunction ordering the
respondents to desist from closing EuroCredit Community Bank,
Incorporated (ECBI) and from pursuing the receivership thereof.
Petitioner Vivas and his principals acquired the controlling interest
in Rural Bank Faire, a bank whose corporate life has already
expired. BSP authorized extending the banks’ corporate life and
was later renamed to EuroCredit Community Bank (ECBI).
Pursuant to Section 28 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7653, otherwise
known as The New Central Bank Act, the Integrated Supervision
Department II (ISD II) of the BSP conducted a general
examination on ECBI.
Thereafter, the Monetary Board (MB) issued Resolution No. 1255,
dated September 25, 2008, placing ECBI under Prompt Corrective
Action (PCA) framework because of the following serious findings
and supervisory concerns noted during the general examination:
1] negative capital of P14.674 million and capital adequacy ratio
of negative 18.42%; 2] CAMEL (Capital Asset Management
Earnings Liquidity) composite rating of "2" with a Management
component rating of "1"; and 3] serious supervisory concerns
particularly on activities deemed unsafe or unsound.
Vivas moved for a reconsideration of Resolution No. 1255 on the
grounds of non-observance of due process and arbitrariness. The
ISD II, on several instances, had invited the BOD of ECBI to
discuss matters pertaining to the placement of the bank under PCA
framework and other supervisory concerns before making the
appropriate recommendations to the MB. The proposed meeting,
however, did not materialize due to postponements sought by
Vivas.
The findings bore that ECBI was illiquid, insolvent, and was
performing transactions which are considered unsafe and
unsound banking practices. On the basis of the examination
findings the MB issued Resolution No. 276 placing ECBI
under receivership.
Vivas submits that the respondent committed grave abuse of
discretion. Petitioner argues that it has not committed any financial
fraud and, hence, its placement under receivership was
unwarranted and improper.
He contends that the implementation of the questioned resolution
was tainted with arbitrariness and bad faith, stressing that ECBI
was placed under receivership without due and prior hearing in
violation of his and the bank’s right to due process.
ISSUES:
1. WON the Monetary Board committed grave abuse of discretion
by issuing Resolution No. 276 placing ECBI under receivership?
(NO)
2. WON ECBI was entitled to due and prior hearing before its being
placed under receivership? (NO)
RULING:
1. The MB Committed No Grave Abuse of Discretion
The thrust of Vivas’ argument is that ECBI did not commit any
financial fraud and, hence, its placement under receivership was
unwarranted and improper. He asserts that, instead, the BSP
should have taken over the management of ECBI and extended
loans to the financially distrained bank pursuant to Sections 11
and 14 of R.A. No. 7353 because the BSP’s power is limited only
to supervision and management take-over of banks, and not
receivership.
The Court has taken this into account, but it appears from all over
the records that ECBI was given every opportunity to be heard and
improve on its financial standing. The records disclose that BSP
officials and examiners met with the representatives of ECBI,
including Vivas, and discussed their findings. There were also
reminders that ECBI submit its financial audit reports for the years
2007 and 2008 with a warning that failure to submit them and a
written explanation of such omission shall result in the imposition
of a monetary penalty. More importantly, ECBI was heard on its
motion for reconsideration. For failure of ECBI to comply, the MB
came out with Resolution No. 1548 denying its request for
reconsideration of Resolution No. 726. Having been heard on its
motion for reconsideration, ECBI cannot claim that it was deprived
of its right under the Rural Bank Act.
The “close now, hear later” doctrine has already been justified as
a measure for the protection of the public interest. Swift action is
called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire
straits. Unless adequate and determined efforts are taken by the
government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public
faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the
prejudice of the national economy itself, not to mention the losses
suffered by the bank depositors, creditors, and stockholders, who
all deserve the protection of the government.
SO ORDERED.
ADDITIONAL INFO: