G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999.
ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, CATALINO F. BANEZ and RENATO F. LIM, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and THE MONETARY BOARD OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves petitioners Romeo P. Busuego, Catalino F. Banez, and Renato F. Lim, who were directors and officers of the PAL Employees Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA). A regular examination of PESALA’s books and records conducted by Central Bank (CB) examiners from March 14 to April 16, 1988, uncovered several anomalies and irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioners, including questionable investments, conflict of interest, unwarranted payment of dividends, and unsound business practices. The CB Supervision and Examination Section Department IV Director invited the PESALA Board of Directors to a conference on July 21, 1988, to discuss the findings, but the petitioners did not attend. Petitioner Renato Lim sent a letter dated July 28, 1988, to the PESALA Board explaining his side, and this letter was furnished to the CB. The PESALA Board also sent a letter to the CB on July 29, 1988. Subsequently, on September 9, 1988, the Monetary Board issued Resolution No. 805, which included directives to inform PESALA members of the examination results, to include the petitioners’ names in a watchlist to prevent them from holding responsible positions in any CB-supervised institution, to require PESALA to enforce collection of overpayments and account for unremitted funds, and to require the PESALA board to file civil and criminal cases against the petitioners. The petitioners filed a Petition for Injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which declared the Monetary Board Resolution void and issued a permanent injunction. The Monetary Board appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC decision and dismissed the petition for injunction. The petitioners then filed the present petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners were deprived of their right to due process, specifically notice and an opportunity to be heard, prior to the issuance of Monetary Board Resolution No. 805.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners were not deprived of due process. The Court held that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. The petitioners were afforded this opportunity through the invitation to a conference on July 21, 1988 (which they did not attend), and more importantly, through their submission of explanatory letters—one from petitioner Renato Lim dated July 28, 1988, and another from the PESALA Board of Directors dated July 29, 1988—which were forwarded to and considered by the Monetary Board before it adopted Resolution No. 805. The Court found that the petitioners had availed themselves of the opportunity to present their position, and therefore, could not complain of a denial of due process. The Court further noted that the requirements of procedural due process, as outlined in Ang Tibay v. CIR, were substantially complied with in the administrative proceedings conducted by the Monetary Board, which exercises broad supervisory and examination powers over banking institutions under Republic Act No. 265 (The Central Bank Act). The Court of Appeals’ decision reversing the RTC and dismissing the petition for injunction was upheld.