G.R. No.

200678, June 4, 2018

Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Bangko When petitioner was placed under receivership, the
Sentral ng Pilipinas powers of its Board of Directors and its officers were
suspended. Thus, its Board of Directors could not have
A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be sued validly authorized its Executive Vice Presidents to file the
through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance suit on its behalf. The Petition, not having been properly
Corporation (PDIC). Hence, the petition filed by the verified, is considered an unsigned pleading. A defect in
petitioner bank which has been placed under receivership the certification of non-forum shopping is likewise fatal to
is dismissible as it did not join PDIC as a party to the case. petitioner's cause. Considering that the Petition was led by
signatories who were not validly authorized to do so, the
FACTS: Petition does not produce any legal effect. Being an
Petitioner bank has been placed under receivership when unauthorized pleading, this Court never validly acquired
it filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. jurisdiction over the case. The Petition, therefore, must be
Said Petition was assailed by the respondent that dismissed.
contended that the same should be dismissed outright for
being led without Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation's authority. It asserts that petitioner was
placed under receivership on March 17, 2011, and thus,
petitioner's Executive Committee would have had no
authority to sign for or on behalf of petitioner absent the
authority of its receiver, Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation. They also point out that both the Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation Charter and Republic Act
No. 7653 categorically state that the authority to file suits or
retain counsels for closed banks is vested in the receiver.
Thus, the verification and certification of non-forum
shopping signed by petitioner's Executive Committee has
no legal effect.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioner Banco Filipino, as a closed bank
under receivership, could file this Petition for Review
without joining its statutory receiver, the Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation, as a party to the case.

Ruling:
No. A closed bank under receivership can only sue or be
sued through its receiver, the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation. Under Republic Act No. 7653, when the
Monetary Board finds a bank insolvent, it may "summarily
and without need for prior hearing forbid the institution from
doing business in the Philippines and designate the
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the
banking institution."

The relationship between the Philippine Deposit Insurance

Corporation and a closed bank is fiduciary in nature.
Section 30 of Republic Act No. 7653 directs the receiver of
a closed bank to "immediately gather and take charge of all
the assets and liabilities of the institution" and "administer
the same for the benefit of its creditors." The law likewise
grants the receiver "the general powers of a receiver under
the Revised Rules of Court." Under Rule 59, Section 6 of
the Rules of Court, "a receiver shall have the power to
bring and defend, in such capacity, actions in his [or her]
own name." Thus, Republic Act No. 7653 provides that the
receiver shall also "in the name of the institution, and with
the assistance of counsel as [it] may retain, institute such
actions as may be necessary to collect and recover
accounts and assets of, or defend any action against, the
institution." Considering that the receiver has the power to
take charge of all the assets of the closed bank and to
institute for or defend any action against it, only the
receiver, in its fiduciary capacity, may sue and be sued on
behalf of the closed bank.