2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Mercantile Law - Q1

 

Connie Servo opened a time deposit account with the Rural Bank of San Jose Del Monte using the name of Teresita Gutierrez, a preferred bank client, pursuant to their agreement. When the bank closed down, Servo filed a claim for deposit insurance with the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), asserting that the time deposit was held in trust for her by Gutierrez. However, PDIC denied the claim for lack of documentary proof that Servo was the actual owner of the account. Servo’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

Aggrieved, Servo filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against PDIC. The RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Section 5(g) of R.A. No. 3591 (PDIC Charter), as amended by R.A. No. 10846, PDIC's actions on deposit insurance claims are final and may only be reviewed by the Court of Appeals (CA) through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Undeterred, Servo filed a special civil action for certiorari before the CA, arguing that the RTC had jurisdiction. However, the CA dismissed the petition, ruling that since the issue involved a pure legal question, the case should have been filed directly before the Supreme Court.

May the actions of PDIC on matters relating to insured deposits and deposit liabilities only be assailed before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court?

Ans.

Yes, the actions of PDIC on matters relating to insured deposits and deposit liabilities can only be assailed before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Under PDIC Charter, 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.

Here, The Court of Appeals could not have granted Servo’s prayer to consider her petition to have been filed in accordance with the PDIC rules simply because the petition was filed beyond the reglementary period prescribed. She filed her petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals when there was nothing more for it to act on since the assailed trial court’s ruling had already lapsed into finality. 

Hence, a petition for certiorari, questioning the PDIC’s denial of a deposit insurance claim should be filed before the CA, not the RTC.