Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, for lack of jurisdiction, the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . [16] In its February 17, 2017 Order, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition, filed directly to this Court on pure question of law.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, for lack of jurisdiction, the petition for certiorari filed by the petitioner is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED . [16] In its February 17, 2017 Order, the RTC denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition, filed directly to this Court on pure question of law. Issue Does the RTC have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65, assailing the PDIC's denial of a deposit insurance claim? Our Ruling The petition lacks merit. There is no controversy as to the proper remedy to question the PDIC's denial of petitioner's deposit insurance claim. Section 4(f) of its Charter, as amended, clearly provides that: x x x The actions of the Corporation taken under this section shall be final and executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the court, except on appropriate petition for certiorari on the ground that the action was taken in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. The petition for certiorari may only be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of denial of claim for deposit insurance. (emphasis supplied) The issue, however, is which court has jurisdiction over such petition. Petitioner's stance is that the petition for certiorari , questioning PDIC's action, denying a deposit insurance claim should be filed with the RTC, arguing in this manner: PDIC is not a quasi-judicial agency and it does not possess any quasi-judicial power under its Charter; It merely performs fact-finding functions based on its regulatory power. As such, applying Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. 07-7-12-SC, which in part states that if the petition relates to an act or omission of a corporation, such as the PDIC, it shall be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by this Court; Also, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act provides that this Court, the CA, and the RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari , prohibition, and mandamus. Applying the principle of hierarchy of courts, the RTC indeed has jurisdiction over such petition for certiorari . We do not agree. On June 22, 1963, PDIC was created under RA 3591 as an insurer of deposits in all banks entitled to the benefits of insurance under the said Act to promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public. [17] As such, PDIC has the duty and authority to determine the validity of and grant or deny deposit insurance claims. Section 16(a) of its Charter, as amended, provides that PDIC shall commence the determination of insured deposits due the depositors of a closed bank upon its actual take over of the closed bank. Also, Section 1 of PDIC's Regulatory Issuance No. 2011-03, provides that as it is tasked to promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public by way of providing permanent and continuing insurance coverage on all insured