Cited Laws
accordingly, PDIC issued the following cease and desist order, to wit: "With the MB's closure of the Bank, all members of the Board of Directors and officers of the Bank shall cease to have any further authority to act for and in behalf of the Bank, PDIC, as receiver, shall immediately take charge of the assets, records, and affairs of the Bank. As such, the Bank, its premises[,] assets, records shall be turned over to the Deputy Receiver immediately upon receipt of the attached MB Resolution." Consequently, PDIC closed all of G7 Bank's deposit accounts with other banks, including its checking account with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) against which the disputed checks were issued. Upon maturity of the subject postdated checks in October 2008, SB Corp. deposited the same to its account with the LBP Makati branch but all of them were dishonored for reason of "Account Closed". Subsequently, SB Corp. sent demand letters to Cu and Pascual demanding payment of the amounts represented in the dishonored checks. Despite receipt of the demand letters, Cu and Pascual failed to make good the dishonored checks, prompting SB Corp. to file a Complaint-Affidavit for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati. After finding that probable cause exists to indict Cu and Pascual for Violation of B.P. 22, on five counts, the corresponding Informations were filed in court. Eventually, the cases were raffled to Branch 65 of the [Metropolitan Trial Court,] Makati City [(MeTC)]. Meantime, on October 15, 2009, PDIC filed a Petition for Assistance in the Liquidation of 07 Bank with the RTC Branch 21 of Naga City. SB Corp. then filed its Notice of Appearance with Notice of Claims with the liquidation court on January 28, 2010. The following day, the [MeTC] issued an Order setting the arraignment of the accused Cu and Pascual on March 2, 2010. Before the scheduled arraignment, however, Cu and Pascual filed an "Omnibus Motion (1. For the Determination of Probable Cause 2. To Dismiss the Instant Cases on Jurisdictional Grounds 3. To Defer the Arraignment and Further Proceedings on the Ground of Prejudicial Question 4. To Dismiss the Case[s] for Lack of Probable Cause)," alleging the following: 1. The checks were intended to cover the installment payments of the credit line drawdowns obtained from SB Corp. However, the funding of the checks could not be validly done because 07 [Bank] was placed under receivership; and 2. The notice of dishonor was not received by them and in the meantime, there is already a petition for liquidation assistance pending with the RTC of Naga City filed by PDIC. Accordingly, the liquidation court has original exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement of all the obligations of 07 Bank, including the amounts covered by the subject checks. SB Corporation countered that the only issue being determined in a prosecution for BP 22 case is whether or not the accused issued the worthless checks,
G.R. No. 197849 - RAFFY BRODETH AND ROLAN B. ONAL, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ABRAHAM G. VILLEGAS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 197849 -
CaseG.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).
G.R. No. 222972 -
CasePHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MAKATI CITY, BRANCH 59.
A.M. No. RTJ-21-015