G.R. Nos. 154470-71 - BANK OF COMMERCE, VS. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK AND BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS. [G.R. NOS. 154589-90] BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, VS. PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed x x x that, after due notice and hearing, the Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition and Injunction, be issued; (i) commanding the [BSP] and [Nuqui], or whoever may take her place - (a) to record forthwith in the books of BSP the claim of x x x PDB on the [two sets of] CB Bills in accordance with Section 10 (d) (4) of revised C.B. Circular No. 28; and (b) also pursuant thereto, when the bills are presented on maturity date for payment, to call (i) x x x PDB[,] (ii) x x x RCBC x x x, (iii) x x x BOC x x x, and (iv) x x x ALL-ASIA x x x; or whoever will present the [first and second sets of] CB Bills for payment, to submit proof as to who stands as the holder in due course of said bills, and, thereafter, act accordingly; and (ii) [ordering the BSP and Nuqui] to pay jointly and severally to x x x PDB the following: (a) the sum of P100,000.00, as and for exemplary damages; (b) the sum of at least P500,000.00, or such amount as shall be proved at the trial, as and for attorneys fees; (c) the legal rate of interest from the filing of this Petition until full payment of the sums mentioned in this Petition; and (d) the costs of suit. [36] After the petitions were filed, the BOC acquired/reacquired all the nine CB bills the first and second sets of CB bills ( collectively, subject CB bills ). Defenses of the BSP and of the BOC [37] The BOC filed its Answer, praying for the dismissal of the petition. It argued that the PDB has no cause of action against it since the PDB is no longer the owner of the CB bills. Contrary to the PDBs warehousing theory, [38] the BOC asserted that the (i) April 15 transaction and the (ii) April 19 transaction covering both sets of CB bills - were valid contracts of sale, followed by a transfer of title (i) to the BOC (in the April 15 transaction) upon the PDBs delivery of the 1 st set of CB bills in substitution of the Treasury Bills the PDB originally intended to sell, and (ii) to Bancap (in the April 19 transaction) upon the PDBs delivery of the 2 nd set of CB bills to Bancap, likewise by way of substitution. The BOC adds that Section 10 (d) 4 of CB Circular No. 28 cannot apply to the PDBs case because (i) the PDB is not in possession of the CB bills and (ii) the BOC acquired these bills from the PDB, as to the 1 st set of CB bills, and from Bancap, as to the 2 nd set of CB bills, in good faith and for value. The BOC also asserted a compulsory counterclaim for damages and attorneys fees. On the other hand, the BSP countered that the PDB cannot invoke Section 10 (d) 4 of CB Circular No. 28 because this section applies only to an owner and a person presenting the bond, of which the PDB is neither. The PDB has not presented to the BSP any assignment of the subject CB bills, duly recorded in the BSPs books, in its favor to clothe it with the status of an owner. [39] According to the BSP Section 10 d. (4) applies only to a registered bond which is assigned . And the issuance of CB