RURAL BANK OF BUHI VS.

CA

Facts:
Petitioner is a juridical entity existing under the laws of the Phils. &
started its operation only on Dec. 26, 1975. In 1980, an examination
of books & affairs was ordered conducted by DRBSLA. However,
petitioner refused examination & as a result, financial assistance
was suspended by the Central Bank.

On Jan. 10, 1980, a general examination of its affairs was conducted
& was found to have massive irregularities consisting of loans to
unknown & fictitious borrowers.

Respondent Odra, Director of DRBSLA, submitted a report
recommending to the Monetary Board of the Central Bank the
placing of Buhi under receivership in accordance w/ Sec. 29 of RA
265. Petitioner filed several motions and comments about the case.

Issue: W/N petitioner was denied due process of law when it was
placed under receivership?

Held: NO!
RA 265 expressly states that there is no requirement that a hearing
be first conducted before a banking institution may be placed under
receivership. The law is explicit as to the conditions prerequisite to
the action of the Monetary Board to forbid the institution to do
business in the Phils. & to appoint a receiver to immediately take
charge of the banks asset & liabilities. Due process does not
necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an opportunity to be
heard may be subsequent to the closure.

Petitioner was given a chance to be heard upon the opportunity to
file different motions & comments. It substantially complied with
the due process requirement of the law. It need not be the hearing
embodied in the technical rules of Court.