GR L 70054; (July, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986
BANCO FILIPINO, petitioner, vs. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
This case involves two consolidated motions arising from the closure of Banco Filipino (BF). The first concerns a motion for the payment of back salaries to BF officers and employees from February to August 29, 1985. The trial court ordered the respondents, through the Monetary Board’s receiver, to pay these back salaries. The respondents appealed, arguing that such payment after the bank’s closure would constitute a dissipation of assets prejudicial to creditors. The second motion is a petition to set aside a trial court order directing the respondents to produce and allow inspection of specific documents, including Monetary Board deliberation tapes and conservator’s reports, which BF claimed were necessary to prepare its objections to the conservator’s and receiver’s reports.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) Whether the order for the payment of back salaries to BF employees for a specified period should be upheld; and (2) Whether the order for the production of confidential documents related to the bank’s closure should be affirmed.
RULING
The Supreme Court resolved both issues in favor of Banco Filipino. On the payment of back salaries, the Court sustained the trial court’s order based on principles of equity. It noted the uncontested fact that the receiver had already paid union employees back salaries for “no work” from January 25 to June 1985. This voluntary act by the Monetary Board’s agent created an estoppel, removing any impediment to similarly paying all employees for that period. For the remaining two months (July-August 1985), the Court, considering the employees’ distressed plight, the minimal period involved, and the bank’s consent to payment, allowed the order to stand to prevent further injustice.
Regarding the production of documents, the Court affirmed the trial court’s order, with a minor exception. It rejected the respondents’ invocation of the official communications privilege, which protects confidential state communications. The Court held this privilege is for public interest protection, not officer protection. The respondents failed to establish that public interest would suffer from disclosure, especially since the bank was already closed, eliminating risks like a bank run. Disclosure would instead serve the public interest by informing depositors and creditors about the legality of the closure. The Court, however, exempted the Monetary Board deliberation tapes from production if they were genuinely no longer available, as respondents claimed the tapes were reused for economy and not required to be stored.