View full case

PDIC v. PCR BANK

FACTS:

The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) conducted an investigation on ten banks, including the Banks in this case, without prior approval from the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). The PDIC Board approved the investigation based on Reports of Examination from the BSP and created a Special Investigation Team to conduct the investigation. The PDIC served Notices of Investigation to the Banks and found that PCRBI granted loans settled by dacion of properties that had already been previously foreclosed and consolidated under the names of other banks. The Banks, commonly owned and/or controlled by Legacy Plans Inc. and Celso Gancayco delos Angeles, Jr. and his family, refused access to their bank premises and records, arguing that prior approval from the Monetary Board is required for PDIC's investigatory power. The Banks sought clarification from PDIC and the Monetary Board on the authority to conduct the investigation. PDIC sent final demands to the Banks to allow the investigation, but the Banks requested PDIC to refrain from proceeding pending action on their clarification requests.

ISSUES:

I. Whether respondent banks violated the rule against forum shopping when they filed the petition for injunction before the Court of Appeals-Cebu.

II. Whether the pronouncement of the Regional Trial Court of Makati in the petition for declaratory relief constitutes res judicata to the petition for injunction in the Court of Appeals-Cebu.

III. Whether petitioner was deprived of its opportunity to be heard when the Court of Appeals-Cebu issued the writ of injunction.

IV. Whether the issues raised by petitioners are the same issues raised in G.R. No. 173370 which was earlier dismissed by this Court.

V. Whether the Court of Appeals-Cebu erred in finding that prior approval of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is necessary before the PDIC may conduct an investigation of respondent banks.

RULING:

I. The respondent banks did not violate the rule against forum shopping when they filed the petition for injunction before the Court of Appeals-Cebu. The elements of litis pendentia were not present as the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for were different in the various petitions involved.

II. The pronouncement of the Regional Trial Court of Makati in the petition for declaratory relief does not constitute res judicata to the petition for injunction in the Court of Appeals-Cebu. The reliefs sought under declaratory relief and injunction are markedly different.

III. The petitioner was not deprived of its opportunity to be heard when the Court of Appeals-Cebu issued the writ of injunction. Procedural due process was observed by the Court of Appeals-Cebu.

IV. The issues raised by petitioners in the current case are not the same as the issues raised in G.R. No. 173370. The nature and the issues of the two cases are different.

V. The Court of Appeals-Cebu erred in finding that prior approval of the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas is necessary before the PDIC may conduct an investigation of respondent banks. The investigation based on examination reports can proceed without the Monetary Board's prior approval.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Forum Shopping: Engaging in multiple legal proceedings with the same parties and issues seeking a favorable judgment constitutes forum shopping and is prohibited.

  • Res Judicata: A matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.

  • Procedural Due Process: Ensuring fair procedures, including reasonable opportunities to be heard and to present evidence.

  • Jurisdiction and Nature of Petitions: Differentiation between various legal petitions (declaratory relief, injunction, etc.) and their jurisdictional implications.

  • Investigation vs. Examination: The distinction between PDIC's power of investigation, which does not require prior approval of the Monetary Board, and the power of examination, which does.