Central Bank Board of Liquidators vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank
G.R. No. 173399. February 21, 2017.
Central Bank (CB) issued a resolution placing Banco Filipino under conservatorship. Banco Filipino filed a complaint with the RTC against the CB for the annulment of MB Resolution No. 955 (Civil Case No. 8108). In 1985, CB issued another ordering the closure of Banco Filipino and placing the latter under receivership. Banco Filipino filed a Complaint with the RTC questioning the act of it placing the bank under receivership (Civil Case No. 9675). CB issued another Resolution placing Banco Filipino under liquidation. Respondent then filed another Complaint with the RTC to question the propriety of the liquidation. (Civil Case No. 10183).
The Court En Banc consolidated the cases and ordered the CB and its MB to reorganize the bank and allow Banco Filipino to resume business. In 1994, Banco Filipino filed a Motion to Admit Attached Amended/ Supplemental Complaint in the three consolidated cases. It sought to substitute the CB-BOL for the defunct CB and its MB. Respondent also aimed to recover at least P18 billion representing damages and fees against petitioner who had allegedly acted with malice and bad faith in placing the bank under conservatorship and eventually closing it down in 1985. The trial court granted the Motion to Admit filed by Banco Filipino and accordingly admitted the latter’s Amended/Supplemental Complaint.
In 2003, after the enactment of R.A. 7653, Banco Filipino again filed a Motion to Admit Second Amended/ Supplemental Complaint in the consolidated civil cases before the RTC. In that Second Amended/ Supplemental Complaint, respondent sought to include the BSP and its MB — “the purported successor-in-interest of the old CB” — as additional defendants based on the latter’s alleged acts or omissions. Banco Filipino claimed that the BSP employed “coercive measures” that forced respondent to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) regarding the collection of advances extended to the latter by the defunct CB. The RTC, granted the Motion to Admit Banco Filipino’s Second Amended/ Supplemental Complaint.
Whether or not the RTC and CA erred when it admitted respondent’s second amended/ supplemental complaint against the BSP, despite the fact that the parties, subject matter and causes of action asserted therein are different from and totally unrelated to respondent’s causes of action under the first amended supplemental complaint against the defunct CB.
Yes, the second amendment is improper. The prevailing rule on the amendment of pleadings is one of liberality, with the end of obtaining substantial justice for the parties. However, the option of a party-litigant to amend a pleading is not without limitation. If the purpose is to set up a cause of action not existing at the time of the filing of the complaint, amendment is not allowed. If no right existed at the time the action was commenced, the suit cannot be maintained, even if the right of action may have accrued thereafter. The original Complaint was based on the alleged illegal closure of Banco Filipino effected in 1985 by the defunct CB and its MB. On the other hand, the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint stemmed from the alleged oppressive and arbitrary acts committed by the BSP and its MB against Banco Filipino after respondent bank was reopened in 1994. Since the acts or omissions allegedly committed in violation of respondent’s rights are different, they constitute separate causes of action.
The second supplemental pleading was also improper. A supplemental pleading only serves to bolster or add something to the primary pleading. Its usual function is to set up new facts that justify, enlarge, or change the kind of relief sought with respect to the same subject matter as that of the original complaint. In the instant case, Banco Filipino, through the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint, attempted to raise new and different causes of action that arose only in 1994. These causes of action had no relation whatsoever to the causes of action in the original Complaint, as they involved different acts or omissions, transactions, and parties. If the Court admits the Second Amended/Supplemental Complaint under these circumstances, there will be no end to the process of amending the Complaint.
- Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to amend their pleadings (a) by adding or striking out an allegation or a party’s name; or (b) by correcting a mistake in the name of a party or rectifying a mistaken or an inadequate allegation or description in the pleadings for the purpose of determining the actual merits of the controversy in the most inexpensive and expeditious manner.
- Rule 10 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court allows the parties to supplement their pleadings by setting forth transactions, occurrences, or events that happened since the date of the pleading sought to be supplemented.