[ G.R. No. L-29352. July 22, 1985 ] 222 Phil. 194
EN BANC
[ G.R. No. L-29352. July 22, 1985 ]
EMERITO M. RAMOS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS; COMMERCIAL BANK OF MANILA INTERVENOR. R E S O L U T I O N
TEEHANKEE, J.:
Pending final determination is respondent Central Bank’s motion for reconsideration dated December 28, 1982 of the Court’s Resolution of October 19, 1982 which ruled “applying the Tapia ruling as reaffirmed by the Court in the subsequent cases cited above [OBM vs. Vicente Cordero, 113 SCRA 303 (March 30, 1982), per Escolin, J.; OBM vs. Julian Cordero, 113 SCRA 778 (April 27, 1982), per Barredo, J.] that the bank is not liable for interest on the Central Bank loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981.” In the Tapia ruling (105 SCRA 49, June 11, 1981), the Court held that “the obligation to pay interest on the deposit ceases the moment the operation of the bank is completely suspended by the duly constituted authority, the Central Bank,” and that “for the guidance of those who might be concerned, and so that unnecessary litigations may be avoided from further clogging the dockets of the courts, that in the light of the considerations expounded in the above opinion, the same formula that exempts petitioner from the payment of interest to its depositors during the whole period of factual stoppage of its operations by orders of the Central Bank, modified in effect by the decision as well as the approval of a formula of rehabilitation by this Court, should be, as a matter of consistency, applicable or followed in respect to all other obligations of petitioner which could not be paid during the period of its actual complete closure.” The parties have been extensively heard on the pending incident through their various pleadings and in oral argument on October 23, 1984 as well as in their memoranda in amplification of oral argument. Respondents have failed to adduce any cogent argument to persuade the Court to reconsider its Resolution at bar that the Tapia ruling as reaffirmed by the aforecited cases is fully applicable to the non-payment of interest, during the period of the bank’s forcible closure, on loans and advances made by respondent Central Bank. Respondent Central Bank itself when it was then managing the Overseas Bank of Manila (now Commercial Bank of Manila) under a holding trust agreement, held the same position in Idelfonso D. Yap vs. OBM and CB (CA-G.R. No. 48887-R) wherein it argued in its brief that “(I)n a suit against the receiver of a national bank for money loaned to the Bank while it was a going concern, it was error to permit plaintiff to recover interest on the loan after the bank’s suspension” (citing Zollman, Banks and Banking). In Pablo R. Roman, et al. vs. Central Bank (CA-G.R. No. 49144-R, October 18, 1973, per then Court of Appeals Justice Hermogenes Concepcion Jr.), the appellate court by final judgment affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering appellant Central Bank to condone all interests on Central Bank loans to the Republic Bank, as well as penalties imposed on it which would be tantamount “to force the Republic Bank to liquidate as an insolvent.” It should be further noted that the respondent Central Bank when called upon to deal with commercial banks and extend to them emergency loans and advances, deals with them not as an ordinary creditor engaged in business, but as the ultimate monetary authority of government charged with the supervision and preservation of the banking system. A significant development of the case also is set forth in the manifestation dated October 19, 1984 of Government Corporate Counsel and general counsel of the COMBANK Manuel M. Lazaro confirming inter alia that “(T)he Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) has acquired ownership of 99.93% of the outstanding capital stock of COMBANK,” and urging resolution at the earliest time possible of the sole issue raised in respondent Central Bank’s motion for reconsideration of the Resolution of October 19, 1982 that “applying the Tapia ruling as reaffirmed by the Court in subsequent cases, COMBANK is not liable for interest on CB loans and advances during the period of its closure from August 2, 1968 to January 8, 1981” (Record, Vol. V, p. 2261). In his earlier petition for early resolution, Government Corporate Counsel Manuel M. Lazaro had likewise urged that “(T)he raison d’etre of the Honorable Court’s Resolution of October 19, 1982 is but a re-affirmation of the ruling laid down and firmly established in previous decisions that have long become final, notably OBM vs. Tapia, 105 SCRA 49 (June 11, 1981), OBM vs. Vicente Cordero and Court of Appeals, 113 SCRA 303 (Mar. 30, 1982), and OBM vs. Court of Appeals and Julian R. Cordero, 113 SCRA 778 (April 27, 1982)” (idem, p. 2242). Government Corporate Counsel Lazaro in his aforecited manifestation removes any and all doubts as to the propriety of the Court having rendered its Resolution of October 19, 1982 pursuant to the bank’s motion for a clarificatory ruling in the present case made pursuant to the express agreement between the bank and the respondent Central Bank then under Governor Jaime Laya. As stated in the Resolution itself, “the bank’s letter of July 1, 1981 invoking the Tapia ruling was precisely the subject of the Central Bank’s reply of November 12, 1981 above quoted, agreeing anew that the Central Bank and the Combank seek a clarificatory ruling from the Supreme Court on the applicability of the Tapia ruling to the case at bar with both parties ultimately agreeing to ‘abide by any clarificatory ruling which the Supreme Court may render on the matter’” (Record, Vol. IV, pp. 1993-1994). The COMBANK in its said manifestation makes of record that it has likewise entered into an agreement with its sister government banking institution, the Philippine National Bank, that “both banks have agreed to abide by the final resolution of this Honorable Court on the CB’s pending Motion for Reconsideration,” and that “COMBANK is represented in the above-captioned case by its General Counsel, the Government Corporate Counsel who is also the legal counsel for the PNB and whose services were recently retained by CB in connection with the controversy involving Banco Filipino and Governor Jose B. Fernandez, Jr.” This certainly makes moot any previous doubts raised during the oral argument that then Central Bank Governor Jaime Laya may not have had the authority to enter into such agreement. The Court’s Resolution of October 19, 1982 manifestly redounds to the benefit of another government institution, the GSIS, which has acquired 99.93% of the outstanding capital stock of the COMBANK and to the preservation of the banking system. It is time to write finis to this case which had its beginnings long ago when the original judgment of October 4, 1971 was rendered against the Central Bank, as succinctly stated by the now Chief Justice in his “[concurrence] in the result primarily on the ground that respondent’s arbitrary and improvident exercise of its asserted power in the premises is violative of due process” (Ramos vs. Central Bank, 41 SCRA 565). ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY with finality respondent Central Bank’s motion for reconsideration, for lack of necessary votes. Fernando, C.J., Concepcion, Jr., De la Fuente, and Alampay, JJ., concur. Aquino, J., see dissent. Melencio-Herrera, J., see attached dissent. Plana, J., see dissent. Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., join J. Aquino in his dissent. Abad Santos, J., on official leave. Makasiar, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., no part.