G.R. No. 222972 - HERMOSA SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK, INC.,** REPRESENTED BY ITS STATUTORY LIQUIDATOR, PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (PDIC), VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (DBP).

Ruling

Accordingly, a Notice of Garnishment was served on Hermosa Bank. Subsequently, at the instance of Hermosa Bank, the Writ of Preliminary Attachment was lifted and discharged via the Order dated October 14, 2003 of RTC-Branch 136. However, the Writ was later reinstated pursuant to the Decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 84762. [12] Thereafter, Hermosa Bank filed an Answer with Counterclaim. Defendant officers likewise filed their respective Answers with Counterclaim. The case was then set for preliminary conference. [13] Meanwhile, on February 5, 2005, the Monetary Board of the BSP ordered the closure of Hermosa Bank and placed it under receivership. Consequently, the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) was appointed as receiver. [14] On June 7, 2005, the PDIC filed a Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of Hermosa Bank. The Petition was raffled to Branch 5, RTC of Dinalupihan, Bataan (liquidation court), which gave due course to the Petition, and docketed the case as SP No. DH-025-05. Due to PDIC's Petition, Hermosa Bank's counsel withdrew its appearance. The Office of the General Counsel of the PDIC then entered its appearance and filed a Supplemental Answer [15] dated May 24, 2006, and Pre-Trial Brief in Civil Case No. 01-1438. [16] Subsequently, defendants filed their respective Motions to Dismiss the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant officers cited Pacific Banking Corp. Employees Organization v. Court of Appeals , [17] and argued that the jurisdiction over DBP's money claims against Hermosa Bank lies with the liquidation court. For Hermosa Bank, it raised the same argument, but cited Section 30 [18] of Republic Act No. 7653 [19] (The New Central Bank Act). [20] The Ruling of the RTC In the Order [21] dated October 6, 2008, RTC-Branch 136 granted the Motions to Dismiss and dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. However, in an Order [22] dated March 18, 2009, the RTC-Branch 136 granted DBP's Motion for Reconsideration and reinstated the Complaint. It held that because the Complaint was filed four years before the PDIC filed the liquidation proceedings in 2005, it retained its jurisdiction over the case. [23] Aggrieved, defendants filed separate Motions for Reconsideration of the Order dated March 18, 2009. In its Order [24] dated April 30, 2010, RTC-Branch 136 again dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, it discharged the writ of attachment and ruled that the writ gave DBP undue advantage over Hermosa Bank's other creditors. [25] DBP moved for the reconsideration, which defendants opposed. [26] Meanwhile, RTC-Branch 136 was designated as a family court. As a result, the case was re-raffled to RTC Branch 57. [27] In the Order [28] dated October 18, 2011, RTC-Branch 57 denied DBP's Motion for Reconsideration. It affirmed the rationale of the Order dated April 30, 2010 of RTC-Branch 136. Citing Section 10(b) [29] and 10(c)(5) [30] of Republic Act No. 3591 (PDIC Charter), [31] as amended