FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236240. February 8, 2023.]
PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.JOSEFINA L. ADOR DIONISIO-ESGUERRA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 8, 2023which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236240 (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Josefina L. Ador Dionisio-Esguerra). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 are the July 18, 2017 Decision 2 and the November 29, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 137225 which reversed petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation's (PDIC) denial of the deposit insurance claim of respondent Josefina L. Ador Dionisio-Esguerra. In a letter dated July 12, 2013, PDIC denied respondent's deposit insurance claim 4 and subsequently, in a letter dated August 6, 2014, also denied the respondent's request for reconsideration. 5
The Facts
On May 23, 2013, the Monetary Board (MB) of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) ordered the closure of Cooperative Rural Bank of Bulacan, Inc. (CRBBI) and placed CRBBI under PDIC's receivership. 6 PDIC thus took over CRBBI's assets and affairs and examined its records for purposes of determining, among others, the insured deposits. 7
In view of the closure of CRBBI, respondent filed with the Deposit Insurance Sector of PDIC a claim for deposit insurance for Certificate of Time Deposit 00-44-10763-9 in the amount of PHP450,047.34. However, in a letter dated July 12, 2013, PDIC, 8 through Atty. Elaine B. Deticio, Assistant Vice President of the Claims Group, Claims Processing Department denied respondent's claim. Based on the verification/examination of available bank records, the PDIC found that respondent's deposit account originated from the account of Atty. Cornelio Linsangan (Atty. Linsangan) and his late wife, Ligaya Linsangan (Ligaya). 9 Since there are no bank records or documents to support the consideration for the transfer of funds from the account of Atty. Linsangan to respondent, the beneficial ownership is retained by Atty. Linsangan, who is entitled to claim for insurance subject to consolidation of deposit accounts. 10
On August 30, 2012, respondent filed with the PDIC a Request for Reconsideration 11 wherein respondent averred that she is entitled to the deposit insurance claim based on the following grounds: (1) the transfer was made for a valid consideration there being a donation and (2) she is a third degree relative by consanguinity of Atty. Linsangan, thereby making her a Qualified Relative pursuant to the Terms and Conditions printed on the passbook issued by CRBBI in her name. In support of her claims, respondent attached to the Request for Reconsideration the Affidavit in Support of Transfers of Bank Deposit (Affidavit) executed by Atty. Linsangan 12 and a written note entitled "A Christmas Gift." 13 TIADCc
In the Affidavit, Atty. Linsangan stated that he was a depositor of CRBBI and that the deposit accounts were under his name and/or in the name of his late wife, Ligaya. 14 Sometime in 2012, Atty. Linsangan decided to close his accounts with CRBBI and open new accounts where he will transfer deposits to be distributed to certain individuals. 15 On December 25, 2012, during a Christmas gathering, Atty. Linsangan distributed passbooks to his relatives, each with a note stating "Christmas Gift." 16 Respondent, the daughter of Atty. Linsangan's sister, is the recipient of Passbook No. 31372 with Account No. 44-10763-9. 17 At the time respondent received the passbook, the amount in the account was PHP450,000.00. 18 The recipients of the passbooks gratefully accepted the same and expressed that they wanted Atty. Linsangan to keep custody of the passbooks so that the latter can collect interest thereon for the rest of his life. 19
In a letter dated August 6, 2014, 20 PDIC, through Elizabeth E. Oller, Vice President of the Claims Group, Claims Processing Department, denied the respondent's Request for Reconsideration pursuant to PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 (RI 2009-03). PDIC noted that CRBBI was not furnished a copy of any documents that provide legitimate basis for the transfer of the deposit from the transferors to respondent. Moreover, the documents submitted by respondent do not show that she is the relative of Atty. Linsangan and/or his wife within the 2nd degree of consanguinity or affinity. Hence, since Atty. Linsangan and/or his wife were the beneficial owners of the transferred deposit, respondent's claim for payment of deposit insurance must necessarily be denied. 21
Aggrieved, respondent filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari with an application for the issuance of a Preliminary Mandatory Injunction 22 alleging that PDIC gravely abused its discretion when it denied respondent's claim for deposit insurance.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On July 18, 2017, the appellate court reversed PDIC's denial of respondent's claim for deposit insurance and directed PDIC to immediately pay respondent the claim for deposit insurance under Account No. 44-10763-9. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition is GRANTED. The letter of the public respondent dated July 12, 2013 denying the petitioner's claim for deposit insurance and the letter dated August 6, 2014 denying the petitioner's request for reconsideration are hereby REVERSED. The respondent PDIC is DIRECTED to immediately pay the petitioner's claim for deposit insurance under Account No. 44-10763-9.
SO ORDERED. 23
Although the CA found that respondent is not a Qualified Relative within the purview of RI 2009-03, the appellate court stated that a strict application of the requirements of RI 2009-03 is unwarranted because respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove that CRBBI complied with its duty of informing all of its depositors regarding the requirements of RI 2009-03 pursuant to Section 1 (a) of Article VI of RI 2009-03. Considering the documents submitted by respondent in her Request for Reconsideration, the donation is considered a valid consideration for the transfer or break-up of deposits. Thus, respondent is still entitled to her claim for deposit insurance. 24
PDIC filed, on August 10, 2017, a Motion for Reconsideration 25 of the July 18, 2017 assailed Decision. Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration 26 on August 18, 2017. However, in a Resolution 27 dated November 29, 2017, the appellate court denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by PDIC, stating therein that it finds no compelling reason that warrants a modification much less a reversal of the assailed Decision. 28
Hence, this petition filed by PDIC.
In its Petition for Review on Certiorari, 29 PDIC asserts that it did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied respondent's claim for deposit insurance because of the following: (1) the requisites which would warrant the grant of deposit insurance prescribed in RI 2009-03 are absent in this case; (2) respondent's overt acts and admissions show that the alleged donation is merely a ploy to circumvent the law and regulation on deposit insurance; and (3) the doctrine of stare decisis applies in this case given the Decision of this Court in Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, 30 which finally resolved the matter of the break up and subsequent transfer of Atty. Linsangan's CRBBI account. Since there is neither information nor document in CRBBI's records at the time of PDIC's takeover that supports the alleged donation to respondent, and respondent is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan, PDIC avers that it is justified in denying respondent's deposit insurance claim. PDIC further states in its petition that it was merely faithfully complying with its mandate to protect the deposit insurance coverage system from unwarranted and unsubstantiated claims. 31
Respondent, in her Comment to the Petition for Review on Certiorari, 32 reiterates the findings of the appellate court in the latter's July 18, 2017 Decision. Respondent claims that, since CRBBI failed to comply with its duty to inform all its depositors of the requirements under RI 2009-03 by posting a copy of the regulatory insurance at the bank premises, RI 2009-03 is not binding upon respondent. Respondent notes that the publication of RI 2009-03 is for the benefit of the public and posting is for the benefit of the depositors. Respondent further states that, although she was permitted to submit new evidence when her claim was initially denied, PDIC still denied respondent's Request for Reconsideration. Respondent also questions the finality and applicability of the case of Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, 33 the case cited by PDIC in its petition. 34 AIDSTE
PDIC filed a Reply 35 and avers the following: (1) the cases of Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation36 and Dionisio v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation37 finally resolved the matter of the break up and subsequent transfer of the CRBBI account of Atty. Linsangan; (2) PDIC complied with, and the public was informed of, the requirements of RI 2009-03; (3) respondent failed to comply with the requirements of RI 2009-03; and (4) respondent, through her counsel and in her Comment to the Petition, unduly maligns the integrity of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, a government legal institution, and its lawyers, contrary to the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 38
In respondent's Rejoinder, 39 respondent claims that the Entries of Judgment in the cases of Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation40 and Dionisio v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation41 were issued prematurely. She reiterates that RI 2009-03 is not binding upon her because PDIC failed to prove that CRBBI posted a copy of RI 2009-03 in the bank premises as required in RI 2009-03.
Issues
Whether PDIC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying the deposit insurance claim of respondent.
Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
This Court notes that this is not the first instance that the Court has been called upon to decide on the merits of a similar case arising from the same facts and involving similar issues. The cases specifically cited by PDIC in its petition and succeeding pleadings, Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation42 and Dionisio v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, 43 have addressed and resolved similar issues involving different parties, who are also recipients of deposits from Atty. Linsangan.
On April 24, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution in the case of Esguerra v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation44 thereby denying the petition filed by the petitioner therein "for failure to sufficiently show any reversible error in the assailed judgment to warrant the exercise of this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction." 45 The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 137227, held that petitioner Danilo Esguerra failed to show that the proof of the donation has been in the possession of the Bank when the account was broken-up and when a portion of the deposit was transferred to the Subject Deposit. Although the Court acknowledges that Atty. Linsangan intended to donate the Subject Deposit to therein petitioner, the appellate court held that PDIC is still obligated to follow the standard procedures it itself issued pursuant to its powers and functions. On September 20, 2017, the April 24, 2017 Resolution became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 46
On April 25, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution in the case of Dionisio v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation47 thereby denying the petition filed by the petitioner therein for failure of "Petitioner [Divina Ador Dionisio] to sufficiency show that the CA committed any reversible error in holding that she is not entitled to the payment of Insurance Claim No. 3840." 48 Petitioner therein was not entitled to the payment of deposit insurance claim because of the following reasons: (1) petitioner is a third degree relative of Cornelio Linsangan and is thus not considered a "Qualified Relative" under the law; (2) petitioner failed to show proof that the alleged transfer of deposits was indeed valid; and (3) the purported transfer of deposits was essentially undertaken to skirt the regulatory issuances of PDIC pertaining to the payment of deposit insurance. On February 14, 2018, the April 25, 2017 Resolution became final and executory and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 49
In the case of Linsangan v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, 50 petitioner Carlito B. Linsangan is also one of the recipients of the account originating from the account of Atty. Linsangan. This Court also held that the petitioner therein cannot be considered the beneficial owner of the deposit account because there is no document evidencing the donation in the custody of CRBBI upon takeover of the PDIC, and petitioner is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan, to wit:
Petitioner's argument is erroneous. In deposit splitting, there is a presumption that the transferees have no beneficial ownership considering that the source account, which exceeded the maximum deposit insurance coverage, was split into two or more accounts within 120 days immediately preceding bank closure. On the other hand, in cases wherein the transfer into two or more accounts occurred before the 120-day period, the PDIC does not discount the possibility that there may have been a transfer for valid consideration, but in the absence of transfer documents found in the records of the bank at the time of closure, the presumption arises that the source account remained with the transferor. Consequently, even if the transfer into different accounts was not made within 120 days immediately preceding bank closure, the grant of deposit insurance to an account found to have originated from another deposit is not automatic because the transferee still has to prove that the transfer was for a valid consideration through documents kept in the custody of the bank.
In this case, even assuming that Cornelio donated the amount contained in the subject savings account to petitioner, not one document evidencing the alleged donation is in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC. Thus, the PDIC properly relied on the records of the bank which showed that Cornelio's accounts remained in his name and for his account. Moreover, even if the Court disregards the submission of transfer documents, petitioner could not be considered the beneficial owner of the resulting deposit account because he is not a qualified relative of the transferor. Being the son of Cornelio's cousin, petitioner is already a fifth degree relative of the transferor, far from the requirement that the transferee must be a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.
As regards petitioner's contention that the provisions of PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 do not apply to him because he was not personally notified of the contents thereof by CRBBI, the same deserves scant consideration. Ignorantia legis non excusat remains a valid dictum. Here, it is settled that PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03 was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Hence, the publication operated as constructive notice to all owners of bank deposits. Personal notice to all citizens of promulgated laws and regulations is not required.
Considering the above disquisitions, it is sufficiently established that the PDIC did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's claim for deposit insurance. 51 AaCTcI
Similar to the foregoing findings of the Court, particularly the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Linsangan v. Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, 52 respondent is not entitled to her deposit insurance claim because she is not the beneficial owner of the deposit account pursuant to the requirements under RI 2009-03. There is no document evidencing the donation in the custody of CRBBI upon takeover of the PDIC and respondent is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan.
Pursuant to its authority to approve and issue rules and regulations under Section 2 (d) (1) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3591 53 (PDIC Charter), the PDIC Board of Directors approved PDIC RI No. 2009-03 or the rules and regulations pertaining to the determination of beneficial ownership of legitimate deposits. Paragraph. 3, Sec. III of RI 2009-03 provides that, where deposit account/s with an outstanding balance of more than the maximum deposit insurance coverage is/are broken up and transferred to one or more account/s, PDIC shall recognize the transferor as the beneficial owner of resulting deposit account/s unless (1) the break-up and transfer of Legitimate Deposit to the transferee is for a Valid Consideration; (2) the details or information for the transfer, which establish the validity of the transfer from the transferor to the transferee, are contained in any of the Deposit Account Records of the bank; (3) copies of documents, which show the details or information for the transfer, such as but not limited to contracts, agreements, board resolutions, orders of the courts or of competent government body/agency, are in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC; and (4) the transferee is a Qualified Relative of the transferor, to wit:
III. Determination of Beneficial Ownership of Legitimate Deposits
xxx xxx xxx
3. Where a deposit account/s with an outstanding balance of more than the maximum deposit insurance coverage is/are broken up and transferred to one or more account/s, PDIC shall recognize the transferor as the beneficial owner of the resulting deposit accounts entitled to deposit insurance, unless the transferee/s can prove that:
a. The break-up and transfer of Legitimate Deposit was made under all of the following conditions:
i. The break-up and transfer of Legitimate Deposit to the transferee is for a Valid Consideration;
ii. The details or information for the transfer, which establish the validity of the transfer from the transferor to the transferee, are contained in any of the Deposit Account Records of the bank; and
iii. Copies of documents, which show the details or information for the transfer, such as but not limited to contracts, agreements, board resolutions, orders of the courts or of competent government body/agency, are in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC.
b. He/she is a Qualified Relative of the transferor, in which case PDIC shall recognize the transferee as the beneficial owner of the resulting deposit accounts. Relationship shall be proven by relevant documents such as, but not limited to, birth certificates and marriage certificates. 54
With particular regard to the first requirement under Paragraph 3, Sec. III of RI 2009-03, respondent failed to prove that the break-up and transfer of the deposit was made under all the conditions enumerated therein.
In the present case, respondent claims that the deposit was donated to her by Atty. Linsangan as a Christmas gift. Pursuant to Sec. II (d) of RI 2009-03, a Valid Consideration is defined as "that which gives cause to the transfer or break up of deposits, such as loan, payment for services or goods, or donation." 55 Hence, a donation is indeed considered a valid consideration. However, respondent is still required to prove the other conditions enumerated under Paragraph 3 (a), Sec. III of RI 2009-03 such as (1) the details or information for the transfer, which establish the validity of the transfer from the transferor to the transferee, are contained in any of the Deposit Account Records of the bank; and (2) copies of documents, which show the details or information for the transfer, such as but not limited to contracts, agreements, board resolutions, orders of the courts or of competent government body/agency, are in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC. Even considering that the donation may be considered a valid consideration, respondent admits that the other conditions under RI 2009-03 are not present. 56
Respondent simply claims that she cannot be expected to comply with the requirements under RI 2009-03 because she was not informed of the contents of the same by CRBBI. 57 She relies on Sec. 1 (a), Art. VI of RI 2009-03 which provides that "the bank shall within thirty (30) days from date of effectivity of this Regulatory Issuance: a. Inform all its depositors of these rules by posting a copy of this Regulatory Issuance at the bank premises in the form and substance as in Annex 'A' hereof." Respondent admits the fact of publication of RI 2009-03 but claims that CRBBI did not post a copy of RI 2009-03 at the bank premises. The appellate court supports this position by stating that "taking into consideration that CRBBI fell short of its duty of informing its depositors, We find that a strict application of the requirements of RI 2009-03 is unwarranted in the case at bar." 58
We disagree. EcTCAD
The duty of the bank to inform its depositors regarding the regulatory issuance does not affect the effectivity of the law or will require less than strict compliance to the same. Art. 2 of RA 386, 59 or the Civil Code of the Philippines, expressly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided." Under Sec. IX (Effectivity) of RI 2009-03, it is specifically stated that "this regulatory issuance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in the Official Gazette or in any newspaper of general circulation." RI 2009-03 was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation on October 10, 2009. 60 Hence, RI 2009-03 is considered in effect upon publication and such publication is constructive notice to all owners of bank deposits. 61 Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. 62
Although the July 12, 2013 Letter of PDIC allowed respondent to provide new documents to be attached to the request for reconsideration of the denial of the deposit insurance claim, the supporting documents must be "new evidence that were in existence prior to the closure of a bank and which have not been submitted to PDIC at the time of the filing of the claim/s for deposit insurance." 63 However, the Affidavit in Support of Transfers of Bank Deposit was executed by Atty. Linsangan on August 27, 2013, 64 or after the closure of the bank, and still does not sufficiently explain respondent's failure to show that the necessary details of transfer are contained in the Deposit Account Records of the bank and that copies of documents, which show the details or information for the transfer are in the custody or possession of the bank upon takeover by PDIC.
As to the second requirement, the Court agrees with the finding of the appellate court that respondent is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan and/or Ligaya. Sec. II (f) of RI 2009-03 defines Qualified Relative as a "relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity." 65 Respondent readily admits that she is the niece of Atty. Linsangan. 66 As a relative within the third degree of consanguinity, respondent is not a Qualified Relative of Atty. Linsangan.
Considering the foregoing, it is apparent that PDIC was simply exercising its functions according to prevailing rules and regulations and did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied the deposit insurance claim of respondent.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The July 18, 2017 Decision and the November 29, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 137225 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED." Rosario, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-34.
2.Id. at 41-51. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and Franchito N. Diamante.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4. CA rollo, p. 30.
5.Id. at 36.
6.Rollo, p. 67.
7.Id. at 4.
8. Records, p. 30.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 33.
12.Id. at 38-56.
13.Id. at 61.
14.Id. at 38.
15.Id. at 39-45.
16.Id. at 41.
17.Id. at 41-47.
18.Id. at 47.
19.Id. at 61.
20.Rollo, p. 75; records, p. 36.
21.Rollo, p. 75.
22.Id. at 46.
23.Id. at 50-51.
24.Id. at 46-50.
25.Id. at 52.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 52-53.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 11-30.
30. G.R. No. 229018 (Resolution), April 24, 2017. See rollo, p. 203.
31.Rollo, pp. 20-28.
32.Id. at 170-178.
33.Supra.
34.Rollo, pp. 171-177.
35.Id. at 188-206.
36.Supra.
37. G.R. No. 229017 (Notice), April 25, 2017. See rollo, p. 205.
38.Rollo, pp. 191-198.
39.Id. at 209-221.
40.Supra.
41.Supra.
42.Supra.
43.Supra.
44.Supra.
45.Rollo, p. 20.
46.Id.
47.Supra note 37.
48.Rollo, p. 205.
49.Id.
50. 846 Phil. 680 (2019).
51.Id. Emphasis Supplied.
52.Supra at 689-690.
53. Entitled "AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, DEFINING ITS POWERS AND DUTIES AND OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 22, 1963.
54. PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, Section III, Paragraph 3. Emphasis Supplied.
55. PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, Section II (d).
56. Records, p. 21.
57.Rollo, p. 174.
58.Id. at 50.
59. Entitled "AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES." Approved: June 18, 1949.
60.Rollo, p. 63; Affidavit of Publication issued by PhilSTAR Daily, Inc.'s Account Supervisor Perlita R. De Lara Certifying that the PDIC Regulatory issuance No. 2009-03 was published in The Philippine Star, a newspaper of general circulation on October 10, 2009 (Annex B of the Motion for Reconsideration).
61.Linsangan v. PDIC, supra note 50.
62. Republic Act No. 386 (1950), Sec. 3.
63. Records, p. 30.
64.Id. at 38-56.
65. PDIC Regulatory Issuance No. 2009-03, Section II (f).
66. Records, p. 34.