July 1986 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1986 > July 1986 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-70054 July 8, 1986 - BANCO FILIPINO v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL.:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-70054. July 8, 1986.]
BANCO FILIPINO, Petitioner, v. MONETARY BOARD, ET AL., Respondents.
Ramon Quisumbing and Norberto Quisumbing and Emmanuel Pelaez for Petitioner.
Iñigo B. Regalado, Jr. counsel for Central Bank.
Sycip, Salazar, Feliciano & Hernandez for Respondents.
R E S O L U T I O N
On November 4, 1985, Petitioner Bank filed in the instant case, a "Motion to Pay Back Salaries to All BF Officers and Employees from February to August 29, 1985" in connection with its "Opposition to Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration or for Clarification of the Resolution of the Court En Banc of October 8, 1985." On November 7, 1985, this Court referred said motion to pay back salaries to Branch 136 (Judge Ricardo Francisco, presiding) of the Makati Regional Trial Court, which this Court had earlier directed under our Resolution of October 8, 1985 issued in G.R. No. 70054, to conduct hearings on the matter of the closure of petitioner Bank and its alleged pre-planned liquidation.
On January 22, 1986, said Regional Trial Court, after considering the petitioner’s motion of November 4, 1985, the respondents’ opposition thereto dated January 15, 1986; the petitioner’s Reply dated January 16, 1986, and the respondents’ Rejoinder dated January 20, 1986, issued an order directing the respondents herein "to pay all officers and employees of petitioner their back salaries and wages corresponding to the period from February to August 29, 1985."cralaw virtua1aw library
On February 4, 1986, respondents herein filed with this Court an "Appeal from, or Petition to Set Aside, order to Pay Back Salaries dated 22 January 1986" praying for the reversal and setting aside of the aforestated trial court’s Order dated January 22, 1986. This was formally opposed by Petitioner when it filed its "Answer to Appeal (re: back salaries)" on February 26, 1986. A month later, on March 26, 1986, respondents filed their "Reply to the Answer" which petitioner traversed in a "Rejoinder to the Reply" dated April 2, 1986.
In a normal situation, no controversy would be expected in the matter of the payment of said back salaries because in the instant case, the party praying for the same is the employer Bank. The attendant circumstances here present have, however, created a peculiar situation. There is resistance to the claim because the management of the assets of the Bank has been transferred to the Respondents’ Receiver who perceived that the directive to pay back salaries after closure of the Bank would be dissipation of the bank’s assets to the prejudice of its various creditors.
There is, however, in this case a significant matter that deserves consideration of this Court and which must be viewed from the stand-point of equity. What stands out is that, regardless of whether the employees of Banco Filipino worked or not after January 25, 1985, there is the uncontested manifestation found in BF’s Answer to the Appeal, dated February 26, 1986 (Vol. IV of Case Records) that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"2. In the fact the receiver/liquidator Carlota Valenzuela had paid Union employees of petitioner BF back salaries for no work from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985. . ." (Emphasis Supplied)
All employees, therefore, of petitioner Banco Filipino who have not yet received their back salaries corresponding to the period from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985 manifestly deserve and ought to be similarly paid by the respondent Monetary Board. It is but fair that the issue whether or not the employees of petitioner Bank had actually worked during said period should now be discounted considering this voluntary act of respondent Monetary Board which would remove by estoppel any impediment to the receipt by all bank employees of their back salaries from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985, assuming that some of them have not yet received the same.
As the remaining period from June, 1985 to August, 1985, involves but a minimal period only of two (2) months, and considering the unfortunate plight of the numerous employees who now invoke the sympathetic concern of this Court, and inasmuch as the appealed Order for the payment of back salaries is only for a limited period or up to August, 1985, the appealed order of November 7, 1985 may be sustained.
Petitioner BF and its stockholders have long put on record their consent to this payment of back salaries of its separated officers and employees. It is also averred that BF intends to reopen its bank and branches, and the payment of back salaries to its employees, no less would help in the preservation of its personnel which is the bank’s most important asset, apart from doing justice to those aggrieved employees. It is mentioned that the Central Bank Liquidator has now more than a billion pesos in cash of Banco Filipino since it continued to receive payments from BF borrowers some P1.5 million a day. It is also said that with the deposits of petitioner BF with the Bank of PI, there is money sufficient to allow the withdrawal of the sums needed to pay the salaries of the employees who have been now out of work for over a year. Apparently, no substantial prejudice will be incurred by the parties to this case by providing for the payment of the distressed employees of the bank for only a specified limited period until the other issues in the consolidated cases are fully resolved.
On the other hand, the said plight of these employees of the Banco Filipino can be readily realized and indeed, should deserve utmost liberal consideration.
WHEREFORE, ruling that the Order of November 7, 1985 of Judge Ricardo Francisco, granting salary to the officers and employees of Banco Filipino for the period from February, 1985 to August 29, 1985, may now be deemed moot and academic insofar as it relates to the period from January 25, 1985 to June, 1985 and as the remaining period, which is from June, 1985 up to August, 1985, covers but a minimal span of two (2) months, the Court RESOLVES, for reasons of equity, to allow the aforestated Order to remain undisturbed and to DISMISS the appeal therefrom. This Order is immediately held executory. (Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.)
On January 22, 1986, said Regional Trial Court, after considering the petitioner’s motion of November 4, 1985, the respondents’ opposition thereto dated January 15, 1986; the petitioner’s Reply dated January 16, 1986, and the respondents’ Rejoinder dated January 20, 1986, issued an order directing the respondents herein "to pay all officers and employees of petitioner their back salaries and wages corresponding to the period from February to August 29, 1985."cralaw virtua1aw library
On February 4, 1986, respondents herein filed with this Court an "Appeal from, or Petition to Set Aside, order to Pay Back Salaries dated 22 January 1986" praying for the reversal and setting aside of the aforestated trial court’s Order dated January 22, 1986. This was formally opposed by Petitioner when it filed its "Answer to Appeal (re: back salaries)" on February 26, 1986. A month later, on March 26, 1986, respondents filed their "Reply to the Answer" which petitioner traversed in a "Rejoinder to the Reply" dated April 2, 1986.
In a normal situation, no controversy would be expected in the matter of the payment of said back salaries because in the instant case, the party praying for the same is the employer Bank. The attendant circumstances here present have, however, created a peculiar situation. There is resistance to the claim because the management of the assets of the Bank has been transferred to the Respondents’ Receiver who perceived that the directive to pay back salaries after closure of the Bank would be dissipation of the bank’s assets to the prejudice of its various creditors.
There is, however, in this case a significant matter that deserves consideration of this Court and which must be viewed from the stand-point of equity. What stands out is that, regardless of whether the employees of Banco Filipino worked or not after January 25, 1985, there is the uncontested manifestation found in BF’s Answer to the Appeal, dated February 26, 1986 (Vol. IV of Case Records) that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"2. In the fact the receiver/liquidator Carlota Valenzuela had paid Union employees of petitioner BF back salaries for no work from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985. . ." (Emphasis Supplied)
All employees, therefore, of petitioner Banco Filipino who have not yet received their back salaries corresponding to the period from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985 manifestly deserve and ought to be similarly paid by the respondent Monetary Board. It is but fair that the issue whether or not the employees of petitioner Bank had actually worked during said period should now be discounted considering this voluntary act of respondent Monetary Board which would remove by estoppel any impediment to the receipt by all bank employees of their back salaries from January 25, 1985 up to June, 1985, assuming that some of them have not yet received the same.
As the remaining period from June, 1985 to August, 1985, involves but a minimal period only of two (2) months, and considering the unfortunate plight of the numerous employees who now invoke the sympathetic concern of this Court, and inasmuch as the appealed Order for the payment of back salaries is only for a limited period or up to August, 1985, the appealed order of November 7, 1985 may be sustained.
Petitioner BF and its stockholders have long put on record their consent to this payment of back salaries of its separated officers and employees. It is also averred that BF intends to reopen its bank and branches, and the payment of back salaries to its employees, no less would help in the preservation of its personnel which is the bank’s most important asset, apart from doing justice to those aggrieved employees. It is mentioned that the Central Bank Liquidator has now more than a billion pesos in cash of Banco Filipino since it continued to receive payments from BF borrowers some P1.5 million a day. It is also said that with the deposits of petitioner BF with the Bank of PI, there is money sufficient to allow the withdrawal of the sums needed to pay the salaries of the employees who have been now out of work for over a year. Apparently, no substantial prejudice will be incurred by the parties to this case by providing for the payment of the distressed employees of the bank for only a specified limited period until the other issues in the consolidated cases are fully resolved.
On the other hand, the said plight of these employees of the Banco Filipino can be readily realized and indeed, should deserve utmost liberal consideration.
WHEREFORE, ruling that the Order of November 7, 1985 of Judge Ricardo Francisco, granting salary to the officers and employees of Banco Filipino for the period from February, 1985 to August 29, 1985, may now be deemed moot and academic insofar as it relates to the period from January 25, 1985 to June, 1985 and as the remaining period, which is from June, 1985 up to August, 1985, covers but a minimal span of two (2) months, the Court RESOLVES, for reasons of equity, to allow the aforestated Order to remain undisturbed and to DISMISS the appeal therefrom. This Order is immediately held executory. (Gutierrez, Jr., J., took no part.)
