3October2011 BANGKOSENTRALNGPILIPINAS BSPComplex,RoxasBoulevard Manila

Attn: Ms.BettyChristineC.Bunyi OfficerinCharge IntegratedSupervisionDepartmentII Re:Letterdated21April2003 Gentlemen: We write on behalf of our clients, Ms. Ana Maria A. Koruga and Mr. ChristopherKoruga,inresponsetoyourletterdated16August2011. Yourletterdated 16August2011states thattheIntegrated Supervision Departmentactedonour21April2003letterandreferredtotheBangkoSentral ngPilipinas(BSP)lettersdated5September2003and4August2009attached thereto. Weinviteyourattentiontothe Answer dated18September2003filedin thecaseof Korugav.Arcenas,etal. (CivilCaseNo.03985)attheRegionalTrial CourtofMakatiCity,Branch138,byMessrs.RafaelB.Buenaventura,AntonioL. Alindogan, Jr., Juan Quintos, Jr., Melito S. Salazar, Jr., Vicente B. Valdepenas, Manuel L. Roxas III, and Ms. Fe B. Barin, who were then members of the MonetaryBoardoftheBSP. In your Answer,youallegethat(i)tis onlythe (Monetary Board) which has the sole authority to place a bank under conservatorship or receivership pursuant to Sections 29 and 30 of the New CentralBankActandSections67and69oftheGeneralBankingLawof2000,or preventivelysuspendordisqualifypersonsfromservingasdirectororofficersof abankunderSection37oftheNewCentralBankAct.1

1Seepage11oftheAnswerdated18September2003.

Despiteadvancingthesaidargument,thethenmembersoftheMonetary Board did not act accordingly and did not address the reliefs sought by our clients. The letter dated 5 September 2003 merely stated that (t)he Monetary Board, in itsResolution No.1034dated24July 2003,notedthereportonthe complaintsoftheminoritydirectors/stockholdersofBancoFilipinoSavingsand MortgageBank(BFSMB)andthattheallegationsrelativetocertainbankloans arebeingaddressedandincludedintheReportofExamination(ROE)asof31 October2002. The Monetary Board, however, did not explain or act on any of the following: 1. The reason/s why the directors and/or officers of Banco Filipino werenotpreventivelysuspended; 2. The reason/s why Banco Filipino was not placed under conservatorshiporreceivership; 3. TheactiontakenbytheMonetaryBoardand/orbytheBSP,ifany, based on the Report of Examination. The Monetary Board never informedourclientswhetherBancoFilipinosubmitteditscomment ontheReportofExaminationafteritwasdirectedtodosobythe MonetaryBoardpursuanttoResolutionNo.1034dated24July2003, andwhattheconsequencesare,intheeventthatBancoFilipinowas notabletosubmititscomment; 4. The sanctions imposed, if any, on the directors and/or officers of BancoFilipino; 5. Theprivatestockholderrelief/s,ifany,whichtheMonetaryBoard providedourclients; 6. IfanyactionwastakenbytheMonetaryBoardconsistentwithour clientsposition,thereason/swhytheMonetaryBoardopposedthe Complaintfiledbyourclients; 7. Specific remedial action sought by our clients on the bank loans detailedin Civil CaseNo.03985andin ourletterdated21April 2003. Unless you can inform us otherwise, we can only conclude that the Monetary Board and/or the BSP have been remiss in its duty to act on our clientsletterdated21April2003accordinglyandhavenotaddressedthereliefs soughtby ourclients. Pleaseletus knowwhatreliefs wereprovidedtoour client,ifany,underourletterdated21April2003orintheComplaintfiledinCivil CaseNo.03985.

Verytrulyyours,

JOSEA.BERNAS