Spouses Chugani Vs Pdic

SPOUSES KISHORE LADHO CHUGANI AND PRISHA KISHORE
CHUGANI, ET AL., PETITIONERS, V. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT - Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65
INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. 2018-03-19 | G.R. with the RTC. On December 27, 2013, the RTC issued a
No. 230037 Consolidated Order dismissing the Petition for Certiorari
for lack of jurisdiction. Upon appeal, the CA affirmed the
FACTS: decision of the RTC.
- Petitioners, upon the invitation of Raymundo Garan, the ISSUES:

President of Rural Bank of Mawab (Davao), Inc., (RBMI),
signified their intention to open Time Deposits with RBMI. (1) Whether the CA is correct in ruling that the RTC has no
jurisdiction over the Petitions for Certiorari filed by the
- RBMI then sent to petitioners the Time Deposit Specimen petitioners. YES
Signature Cards and Personal Information Sheet with the
instruction that petitioners send them back, through mail, to (2) Whether the PDIC committed grave abuse of discretion in
RBMI. denying petitioners claim for deposit insurance. NO
- Petitioners then opened Time Deposit Accounts with RBMI HELD:

through inter-branch deposits to the accounts of RBMI
maintained in Metrobank and China Bank- Tagum, Davao (1) The PDIC has the power to prepare and issue rules and
Branches. Thereafter, Certificates of Time Deposits (CTDs) regulations to effectively discharge its responsibilities. The
and Official Receipts were issued to petitioners. power of the PDIC as to whether it will deny or grant the
claim for deposit insurance based on its rules and
- Sometime in September 2011, petitioners came to know that regulations partakes of a quasi-judicial function. Also, the
the BSP-Monetary placed RBMI under receivership and fact that decisions of the PDIC as to deposit insurance shall
thereafter closed the latter. Petitioners then filed claims for be final and executory, such that it can only be set aside by a
insurance of their time deposits. petition for certiorari evinces the intention of the Congress to
make PDIC as a quasi-judicial agency.
- Respondent Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC)
denied the claims on the following grounds: (1) based on bank Consistent with Section 4, Rule 65, the CA has the
records submitted by RBMI, petitioners' deposit accounts are jurisdiction to rule on the alleged grave abuse of discretion of
not part of RBMI's outstanding deposit liabilities; (2) the time the PDIC. Therefore, the CA is correct when it held that the
deposits of petitioners are fraudulent and their CTDs were not RTC has no jurisdiction over the Petitions for Certiorari filed
duly issued by RBMI, but were mere replicas of unissued by the petitioners questioning the PDIC's denial of their claim
CTD's in the inventory submitted by RBMI to PDIC; and (3) for deposit insurance. Nevertheless, any question as to where
the amounts purportedly deposited by the petitioners were the petition for certiorari should be filed to question PDIC's
credited to the personal account of Garan, hence, they could decision on claims for deposit insurance has been put to rest
not be construed as valid liabilities of RBMI. by R.A. No. 10846.
- Petitioners filed a request for reconsideration of PDIC's denial “Section 7. The actions of the Corporation taken under
of their claim. PDIC however rejected the same. Section 5(g) shall be final and executory, and may only be
restrained or set aside by the Court of Appeals, upon
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.”
As it now stands, the remedy to question the decisions of the

PDIC is through a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 and
filed before the CA.
(2) Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical

exercise of the judgment of a court, tribunal or quasi-judicial
agency that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In this case, it
cannot be said that PDIC committed grave abuse of discretion
in denying petitioners claim for deposit insurance.
Here, upon investigation by the PDIC, it was discovered that

(1) the money allegedly placed by the petitioners in RBMI was
in fact credited to the personal account of Garan, hence, they
could not be construed as valid liabilities of RBMI to
petitioners; (2) based on bank records and the certified list of
the bank's outstanding deposit liabilities, the alleged deposits
of petitioners are not part of RBMI's outstanding liabilities; and
(3) the CTDs are not validly issued by RBMI, but were mere
replicas of the unissued and unused CTDs still included in the
inventory of RBMI.
Further, the act of petitioners in opening Time Deposits and

thereafter depositing several amounts of money through inter-
branch deposits with Metrobank and China Bank for the
account of RBMI can hardly be considered as in the ordinary
course of business.

Spouses Chugani Vs Pdic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Chugani Vs Pdic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Chugani Vs Pdic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPOUSES KISHORE LADHO CHUGANI AND PRISHA KISHORE

- Petitioners, upon the invitation of Raymundo Garan, the ISSUES:

- Petitioners then opened Time Deposit Accounts with RBMI HELD:

As it now stands, the remedy to question the decisions of the

(2) Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical

Here, upon investigation by the PDIC, it was discovered that

Further, the act of petitioners in opening Time Deposits and

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.