In the recent case of BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS, etc., et. al. vs. HON. NINA G. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, et. al., G.R. No. 184778, October 2, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court, guided by the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied, rejected the writ of preliminary injunction issued by a trial court to restrain a legal action commenced by the Monetary Board against banks in Visayas and Mindanao belonging to the notorious Legacy Group which has victimized thousands of middle-class Filipino depositors and investors throughout the Philippines.
May I quote below the doctrinal pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the said case:
1. The requisites for preliminary injunctive relief are: (a) the invasion of right sought to be protected is material and substantial; (b) the right of the complainant is clear and unmistakable; and (c) there is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
As such, a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued only upon clear showing of an actual existing right to be protected during the pendency of the principal action. The twin requirements of a valid injunction are the existence of a right and its actual or threatened violations. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the right to be protected and the violation against that right must be shown.
2. The issuance by the RTC of writs of preliminary injunction is an unwarranted interference with the powers of the Monetary Board (MB). Secs. 29 and 30 of RA 7653 refer to the appointment of a conservator or a receiver for a bank, which is a power of the MB for which they need the ROEs done by the supervising or examining department. The writs of preliminary injunction issued by the trial court hinder the MB from fulfilling its function under the law. The actions of the MB under Secs. 29 and 30 of RA 7653 “may not be restrained or set aside by the court except on petition for certiorari on the ground that the action taken was in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” The writs of preliminary injunction order are precisely what cannot be done under the law by preventing the MB from taking action under either Sec. 29 or Sec. 30 of RA 7653.
3. As to the third requirement, the respondent banks have shown no necessity for the writ of preliminary injunction to prevent serious damage. The serious damage contemplated by the trial court was the possibility of the imposition of sanctions upon respondent banks, even the sanction of closure. Under the law, the sanction of closure could be imposed upon a bank by the BSP even without notice and hearing. The apparent lack of procedural due process would not result in the invalidity of action by the MB. This was the ruling in Central Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals. This “close now, hear later” scheme is grounded on practical and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation of the bank’s assets and as a valid exercise of police power to protect the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public. The writ of preliminary injunction cannot, thus, prevent the MB from taking action, by preventing the submission of the ROEs and worse, by preventing the MB from acting on such ROEs.
4. The trial court required the MB to respect the respondent banks’ right to due process by allowing the respondent banks to view the ROEs and act upon them to forestall any sanctions the MB might impose. Such procedure has no basis in law and does in fact violate the “close now, hear later” doctrine. We held in Rural Bank of San Miguel, Inc. v. Monetary Board, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas:
It is well-settled that the closure of a bank may be considered as an exercise of police power. The action of the MB on this matter is final and executory. Such exercise may nonetheless be subject to judicial inquiry and can be set aside if found to be in excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
5. The respondent banks cannot—through seeking a writ of preliminary injunction by appealing to lack of due process, in a roundabout manner— prevent their closure by the MB. Their remedy, as stated, is a subsequent one, which will determine whether the closure of the bank was attended by grave abuse of discretion. Judicial review enters the picture only after the MB has taken action; it cannot prevent such action by the MB. The threat of the imposition of sanctions, even that of closure, does not violate their right to due process, and cannot be the basis for a writ of preliminary injunction.
6. The “close now, hear later” doctrine has already been justified as a measure for the protection of the public interest. Swift action is called for on the part of the BSP when it finds that a bank is in dire straits. Unless adequate and determined efforts are taken by the government against distressed and mismanaged banks, public faith in the banking system is certain to deteriorate to the prejudice of the national economy itself, not to mention the losses suffered by the bank depositors, creditors, and stockholders, who all deserve the protection of the government.
7. The respondent banks have failed to show their entitlement to the writ of preliminary injunction. It must be emphasized that an application for injunctive relief is construed strictly against the pleader. The respondent banks cannot rely on a simple appeal to procedural due process to prove entitlement. The requirements for the issuance of the writ have not been proved. No invasion of the rights of respondent banks has been shown, nor is their right to copies of the ROEs clear and unmistakable. There is also no necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage. Indeed the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction tramples upon the powers of the MB and prevents it from fulfilling its functions. There is no right that the writ of preliminary injunction would protect in this particular case. In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive writ constitutes grave abuse of discretion. In the absence of proof of a legal right and the injury sustained by the plaintiff, an order for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction will be nullified.
8. Courts are hereby reminded to take greater care in issuing injunctive relief to litigants, that it would not violate any law. The grant of a preliminary injunction in a case rests on the sound discretion of the court with the caveat that it should be made with great caution. Thus, the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction must have basis in and be in accordance with law. All told, while the grant or denial of an injunction generally rests on the sound discretion of the lower court, this Court may and should intervene in a clear case of abuse.
