G.R. No. 254333 , January 14, 2025
JOSEF-DAX AGUILAR, PETITIONER, VS. BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, THE MONETARY BOARD, AND PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Maximum Savings Bank, Inc. (MaxBank) was a thrift bank. After years of supervisory concerns, capital deficiencies, and changes in ownership, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) conducted a regular examination from February to April 2019. The examination found MaxBank critically deficient in capital, asset quality, management, and earnings, with high risks. The Monetary Board, via Resolution No. 1704.C dated November 7, 2019, prohibited MaxBank from doing business under Section 30(b) and (c) of Republic Act No. 7653 and designated the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) as receiver. BSP denied requests from MaxBank and its President/CEO, petitioner Josef-Dax Aguilar, for a hearing, a copy of the examination report, and reconsideration. Aguilar filed a petition for mandamus with injunction before the Court of Appeals to compel the respondents to implement capital deficiency provisions under the Thrift Bank Act, provide a hearing under Section 37 of R.A. No. 7653 , and submit accurate financial reports. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, ruling it was procedurally infirm, that Aguilar lacked standing, and that no ministerial duty to grant a hearing existed given the authority under Section 30. Aguilar’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied Josef-Dax Aguilar’s petition for mandamus, which sought to compel the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the Monetary Board, and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation to provide a hearing and other reliefs related to the closure of Maximum Savings Bank, Inc.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The BSP, through its Monetary Board, has the authority under its police power to summarily forbid a bank from doing business without a prior hearing upon a finding, supported by substantial evidence, of insufficient realizable assets to meet liabilities or that it cannot continue without probable losses to depositors or creditors. The exclusive remedy to assail such action is a petition for certiorari filed by stockholders of record representing the majority of the capital stock within 10 days from receipt of the order, on the ground of excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. Aguilar, as an officer, lacked the legal standing to file the petition for mandamus. His claims, including the alleged unconstitutionality of Section 30 of R.A. No. 7653 for encroaching on the Court’s rule-making power, were without merit. The provision is a substantive law defining a specific remedy, not a procedural rule. Furthermore, mandamus is improper to control the exercise of discretion, such as the BSP’s decision to close the bank, and Aguilar failed to establish a clear legal right to the reliefs sought, such as a pre-closure hearing or the financial reports.