In 2013, Peter opened an account with the Cooperative Rural Bank Bulacan. That same year, however, the bank was placed under the receivership of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation, thus Peter filed an insurance claim with PDIC. The latter denied Peter’s claim after an investigation found that it was the product of a mother account that was split, which is prohibited by law. His motion for reconsideration denied by the PDIC, Peter filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court. Aside from affirming the findings of the PDIC, the RTC ruled that Peter should have filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, as the PDIC was exercising a quasi-judicial function when it denied Peter’s claim. The RTC also cited Section 22 of Republic Act (RA) No. 3591, as amended, which essentially states that only the CA shall issue temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions or preliminary mandatory injunctions against the PDIC for any action under the said Act.
On pure question of law, Peter raised the matter to the Supreme Court, on the issue of whether the RTC have jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed under Rule 65, assailing the PDIC’s denial of a deposit insurance claim.
The Ruling:
The petition lacks merit.
There is no controversy as to the proper remedy to question the PDIC’s denial of petitioner’s deposit insurance claim. Section 4(f) of its Charter, as amended, clearly provides that:
x x x
The actions of the Corporation taken under this section shall be final and executory, and may not be restrained or set aside by the court, except on 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. (emphasis supplied)
The issue, however, is which court has jurisdiction over such petition.
Petitioner’s stance is that the petition for certiorari, questioning PDIC’s action, denying a deposit insurance claim should be filed with the RTC, arguing in this manner: PDIC is not a quasi-judicial agency and it does not possess any quasi-judicial power under its Charter; It merely performs fact-finding functions based on its regulatory power. As such, applying Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. 07-7-12-SC, which in part states that if the petition relates to an act or omission of a corporation, such as the PDIC, it shall be filed with the RTC exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by this Court; Also, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 or the Judiciary Reorganization Act provides that this Court, the CA, and the RTC have original concurrent jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus. Applying the principle of hierarchy of courts, the RTC indeed has jurisdiction over such petition for certiorari.
We do not agree.
On June 22, 1963, PDIC was created under RA 3591 as an insurer of deposits in all banks entitled to the benefits of insurance under the said Act to promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public. As such, PDIC has the duty and authority to determine the validity of and grant or deny deposit insurance claims. Section 16(a) of its Charter, as amended, provides that PDIC shall commence the determination of insured deposits due the depositors of a closed bank upon its actual take over of the closed bank. Also, Section 1 of PDIC’s Regulatory Issuance No. 2011-03, provides that as it is tasked to promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public by way of providing permanent and continuing insurance coverage on all insured deposits, and in helping develop a sound and stable banking system at all times, PDIC shall pay all legitimate deposits held by bona fide depositors and provide a mechanism by which depositors may seek reconsideration from its decision, denying a deposit insurance claim. Further, it bears stressing that as stated in Section 4(f) of its Charter, as amended, PDIC’s action, such as denying a deposit insurance claim, is considered as final and executory and may be reviewed by the court only through a petition for certiorari on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
Considering the foregoing, the legislative intent in creating the PDIC as a quasi-judicial agency is clearly manifest.
In the case of Lintang Bedol v. Commission on Elections, cited in Carlito C. Encinas v. PO1 Alfredo P. Agustin, Jr. and PO1 Joel S. Caubang] this Court explained the nature of a quasi-judicial agency, viz.:
Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature.
The Court has laid down the test for determining whether an administrative body is exercising judicial or merely investigatory functions: adjudication signifies the exercise of the power and authority to adjudicate upon the rights and obligations of the parties. Hence, if the only purpose of an investigation is to evaluate the evidence submitted to an agency based on the facts and circumstances presented to it, and if the agency is not authorized to make a final pronouncement affecting the parties, then there is an absence of judicial discretion and judgment. (emphasis supplied)
Thus, the legislative intent in creating PDIC as a quasi-judicial agency is clearly manifest. Indeed, PDIC exercises judicial discretion and judgment in determining whether a claimant is entitled to a deposit insurance claim, which determination results from its investigation of facts and weighing of evidence presented before it. Noteworthy also is the fact that the law considers PDIC’s action as final and executory and may be reviewed only on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.
That being established, We proceed to determine where such petition for certiorari should be filed. In this matter, We cite the very provision invoked by the petitioner, i.e., Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC:
Sec. 4. When and where to file the petition. – The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted from the notice of the denial of the motion.
If the petition relates to an act or an omission of a municipal trial court or of a corporation, a board, an officer or a person, it shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed with the Court of Appeals or with the Sandiganbayan, whether or not the same is in aid of the court’s appellate jurisdiction. If the petition involves an act or an omission of a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed with and be cognizable only by the Court of Appeals. (emphasis supplied)
Clearly, a petition for certiorari, questioning the PDIC’s denial of a deposit insurance claim should be filed before the CA, not the RTC. This further finds support in Section 22 of the PDIC’s Charter, as amended, which states that:
Section 22. No court, except the Court of Appeals, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the Corporation for any action under this Act. xxx.
This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, the insured bank, or any shareholder of the insured bank. xxx.
xxxx
Finally, the new amendment in PDIC’s Charter under RA 10846, specifically Section 5(g) thereof, confirms such conclusion, viz.:
The actions of the Corporation taken under 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. (Emphasis Ours)
As it stands, the controversy as to which court has jurisdiction over a petition for certiorari filed to question the PDIC’s action is already settled. Therefore, We find no reversible error from the findings and conclusion of the court a quo.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.
TIJAM, J.:
Leonardo-De Castro,[*] Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), on leave.
G.R. No. 230020, March 19, 2018, PETER L. SO, PETITIONER, V. PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.
Citations omitted.