CASE 2016-0021:  BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS FELICIANO P. LEGASPI (G.R. NO. 205966, 02 MARCH 2016, PERALTA , J.) (SUBJECT/S: JURISDICTION BASED ON AMOUNT; JURISDICTION OVER BSP; BSP MAY HIRE PRIVATE COUNSEL INSTEAD OF OSG) (BRIEF TITLE: BSP VS. LEGASPI)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, THE PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 DATED MARCH 13, 2013 OF PETITIONER BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS IS GRANTED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION DATED AUGUST 15, 2012 AND RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2013 OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE REVERSED AND SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS DATED JANUARY 20, 2009 AND APRIL 3, 2009 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, ARE AFFIRMED.

 

LET THIS CASE, THEREFORE, BE REMANDED TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR THE CONTINUATION OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT CAN BE RAISED IN AN APPEAL BY CERTIORARI UNDER RULE 45 OF THE RULES OF COURT?

 

ONLY QUESTIONS OF LAW.

 

ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?

 

YES. THEY ARE AS FOLLOWS:

 

( 1) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, OR CONJECTURES;

 

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD, OR IMPOSSIBLE;

 

(3) WHEN THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

 

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS;

 

 ( 5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

 

( 6) WHEN IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

 

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

 

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WH!CH THEY ARE BASED;

 

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONER’S MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDEPT;

 

AND (I0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8 UNDER THE PRESENT CASE, THE RTC AND THE CA HAVE DIFFERENT FINDINGS OF FACT, HENCE, THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS COURT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER BSP.

 

RTC HAS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER CIVIL ACTIONS WHICH INVOLVE TITLE TO OR POSSESSION OF  REAL PROPERTY WHERE ASSESSED VALUE EXCEEDS P20K. BUT THE COMPLAINT DOES NOT STATE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY.  DOES RTC HAS JURISDICTION?

 

YES BECAUSE ATTACHED TO COMPLAINT WAS A TAX DECLARATION SHOWING THAT THE PROPERTY HAS ASSESSED VALUE OF P215,320.00. ANNEXES TO A COMPLAINT ARE DEEMED PART OF, AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER WITH THE COMPLAINT.

 

CA SAID BSP BEING A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REPRESENTED BY OSG OR OGCC AND NOT A PRIVATE LAW FIRM. IS CA  CORRECT?

 

NO. UNDER R.A. 7653 OR THE NEW CENTRAL BANK ACT, THE BSP GOVERNOR IS AUTHORIZED TO REPRESENT THE BANGKO SENTRAL, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH COUNSEL, INCLUDING PRIVATE COUNSEL, AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED BY THE MONETARY BOARD, IN ANY LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, ACTION OR SPECIALIZED LEGAL STUDIES.16 UNDER THE SAME LAW, THE BSP GOVERNOR MAY ALSO DELEGATE HIS POWER TO REPRESENT THE BSP TO OTHER OFFICERS UPON HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2016-0021-BSP VS LEGASPI 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.