G.R. No. 250440 . May 12, 2021
Ekistics Philippines, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Ekistics Philippines, Inc. (Ekistics) is a stockholder-of-record of Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (Banco Filipino). Respondent Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) is the central monetary authority. On March 17, 2011, the BSP’s Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 372-A placing Banco Filipino under receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC). On October 27, 2011, the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 1635 placing Banco Filipino under liquidation after a PDIC report declared it could no longer be rehabilitated. Majority stockholders of Banco Filipino filed petitions before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing these resolutions (CA-G.R. SP No. 118599 and CA-G.R. SP No. 122130).
While those petitions were pending, Ekistics filed a petition for assistance in liquidation (Sp. Proc. No. M-7411) before the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66. The RTC gave due course but later suspended the proceedings pending the CA cases. During the suspension, the BSP posted an Invitation to Bid for the sale of properties, including some belonging to Banco Filipino. Ekistics then filed a Motion for Leave for Intervention with Petition-in-Intervention and an application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Writ of Preliminary Injunction (WPI) before the RTC, praying to enjoin the BSP from selling Banco Filipino’s assets. The BSP was served notice but did not appear at the hearing.
On September 27, 2016, the RTC issued a 20-day TRO. Subsequently, on October 17, 2016, the RTC granted Ekistics’ application for a WPI upon the posting of a bond, restraining the BSP from selling the specified properties. On October 25, 2016, the RTC granted Ekistics’ motion to reduce the injunction bond. The BSP filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 148787) assailing these RTC Orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Regional Trial Court had no jurisdiction over Ekistics’ Petition-in-Intervention and exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the injunction against the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ Second Amended Decision. The RTC had no jurisdiction to issue the injunction against the BSP. Under Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act), as amended, the actions of the Monetary Board in placing a bank under liquidation are expressly exempt from court interference except through a petition for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals by stockholders representing a majority of the bank’s capital stock within ten (10) days from notice of the board’s action. Ekistics, a single stockholder, filed its Petition-in-Intervention and application for injunction in the RTC liquidation proceedings, which was a circumvention of this exclusive remedy. The RTC’s injunction directly contravened the statutory prohibition against restraining the BSP’s liquidation actions. Furthermore, the requisites for issuing a preliminary injunction were not met. Ekistics, as a stockholder, only has an inchoate right to corporate assets contingent upon the settlement of all debts after liquidation, and it failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right deserving of judicial protection through an extraordinary writ. The CA correctly set aside the RTC’s orders.