bank of commerce vs. planters bank

8/21/2019 Bank of Commerce vs. Planters Bank

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bank-of-commerce-vs-planters-bank 1/22

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. 154470-71 September 24, 2012

BAN O! COMMERCE, Petitioner,vs.P"ANTERS #E$E"OPMENT BAN %&' BANGO SENTRA" NG P("(P(NAS, Respondent.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

G.R. Nos. 1545)*-*0

BANGO SENTRA" NG P("(P(NAS, Petitioner,vs.P"ANTERS #E$E"OPMENT BAN, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

BR(ON, J.:

"efore the Court are t#o consolidated petitions for revie# on certiorari under Rule $%,& on pure'uestions of la#, filed b( the petitioners "an) of Co**erce +"OC and the "an-)o Sentral n-Pilipinas +"SP. he( assail the /anuar( &0, 1001 and /ul( 12, 1001 Orders +assailed orders of theRe-ional rial Court +RC of Ma)ati Cit(, "ranch &$2, in Civil Case Nos. 3$!2122 and 3$!21%$.hese orders dis*issed +i the petition filed b( the Planters Develop*ent "an) +PD", +ii the

4counterclai*4 filed b( the "OC, and +iii the counter!co*plaint5cross!clai* for interpleader filedb(the "SP6 and denied the "OC7s and the "SP7s *otions for reconsideration.

8E 9NECEDENS

he Central "an) bills

I. :irst set of C" bills

he Ri;al Co**ercial "an)in- Corporation +RC"C #as the re-istered o#ner of seven Central"an) +C" bills #ith a total face value of P <0 *illion, issued on /anuar( 1, &33$ and #ould *atureon /anuar( 1, &33%.1 9s evidenced b( a 4Detached 9ssi-n*ent4 dated 9pril =, &33$,2 the RC"C sold

these C" bills to the "OC.$ 9s evidenced b( another 4Detached 9ssi-n*ent4% of even date, the"OC, in turn, sold these C" bills to the PD".> he "OC delivered the Detached 9ssi-n*ents to thePD".<

On 9pril &%, &33$ +9pril &% transaction, the PD", in turn, sold to the "OC reasur( "ills #orth P <0*illion, #ith *aturit( date of /une 13, &33$, as evidenced b( a radin- Order = and a Confir*ation ofSale.3 8o#ever, instead of deliverin- the reasur( "ills, the PD" delivered the seven C" bills to the"OC, as evidenced b( a PD" Securit( Deliver( Receipt, bearin- a 4note? @@ substitution in lieu of 0>!13!3$4 A referrin- to the reasur( "ills.&0Nevertheless, the PD" retained possession of the Detached

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/sep2012/gr_154470_2012.html#fnt1


























9ssi-n*ents. It is basicall( the nature of this 9pril &% transaction that the PD" and the "OC cannota-ree on.

he transfer of the first set of seven C" bills

i. C" bill nos. $%2%&!%2

On 9pril 10, &33$, accordin- to the "OC, it 4sold bac)4&& to the PD" three of the seven C" bills. Inturn, the PD" transferred these three C" bills to "ancapital Develop*ent Corporation +"ancap. On

9pril 1%, &33$, the "OC bou-ht the three C" bills fro* "ancap A so, ulti*atel(, the "OC reac'uiredthese three C" bills,&1 particularl( described as follo#s?

Serial No.? 1"" BM 0$%2%&1"" BM 0$%2%11"" BM 0$%2%2

uantit(? hree +2

Deno*ination? Php &0 *illion

otal :ace Value? Php 20 *illion

ii. C" bill nos. $%2$<!%0

On 9pril 10, &33$, the "OC sold the re*ainin- four +$ C" bills to Capital One E'uitiesCorporation&2 #hich transferred the* to 9ll!9sia Capital and rust Corporation +9ll 9sia. OnSepte*ber 20, &33$, 9ll 9sia further transferred the four C" bills bac) to the RC"C.&$

On Nove*ber &>, &33$, the RC"C sold bac) to 9ll 9sia one of these $ C" bills. hen the "SPrefused to release the a*ount of this C" bill on *aturit(, the "OC purchased fro* 9ll 9sia this loneC" bill,&% particularl( described as follo#s?&>

Serial No.? 1"" BM 0$%2$=

uantit(? One +&


otal :ace Value? Php &0 *illion

9s the re-istered o#ner of the re*ainin- three C" bills, the RC"C sold the* to IVI Capital andInsular Savin-s "an). 9-ain, #hen the "SP refused to release the a*ount of this C" bill on *aturit(,the RC"C paid bac) its transferees, reac'uired these three C" bills and sold the* to the "OC Aulti*atel(, the "OC ac'uired these three C" bills.

9ll in all, the "OC ac'uired the first set of seven C" bills.

II. Second set of C" bills

On 9pril &3, &33$, the RC"C, as re-istered o#ner, +i sold t#o C" bills #ith a total face value of P 10*illion to the PD" and +ii delivered to the PD" the correspondin- Detached 9ssi-n*ent.&< he t#oC" bills #ere particularl( described as follo#s?

















Serial No.? "" BM 0$%2<2"" BM 0$%2<$

Issue date? /anuar( 2, &33$

Maturit( date? /anuar( 1, &33%


otal :ace value? Php 10 *illion

On even date, the PD" delivered to "ancap the t#o C" bills &= +9pril &3 transaction. In turn, "ancapsold the C" bills to 9l!9*anah Isla*ic Invest*ent "an) of the Philippines, #hich in turn sold it to the"OC.&3

PD"7s *ove a-ainst the transfer of the first and second sets of C" bills

On /une 20, &33$, upon learnin- of the transfers involvin- the C" bills, the PD" infor*ed10 the

Officer!in!Char-e of the "SP7s overn*ent Securities Depart*ent,1&

Fa-ri*as Nu'ui, of the PD"7sclai* over these C" bills, based on the Detached 9ssi-n*ents in its possession. he PD"re'uested the "SP11 to record its clai* in the "SP7s boo)s, eplainin- that its non!possession of theC" bills is 4on account of i*perfect ne-otiations thereof and5or subse'uent setoff or transfer.412

Nu'ui denied the re'uest, invo)in- Section = of C" Circular No. 1= +Re-ulations overnin- OpenMar)et Operations, Stabili;ation of the Securities Mar)et, Issue, Servicin- and Rede*ption of thePublic Debt1$ #hich re'uires the presentation of the bond before a re-istered bond *a( betransferred on the boo)s of the "SP.1%

In a /ul( 1%, &33$ letter, the PD" clarified to Nu'ui that it #as not 4as)infor the transfer of the C""illsG. rather it intends to put the "SP on for*al notice that #hoever is in possession of said bills isnot a holder in due course,4 and, therefore the "SP should not *a)e pa(*ent upon the presentationof the C" bills on *aturit(.1> Nu'ui responded that the "SP #as 4not in a position at that point in ti*eto deter*ine #ho is and #ho is not the holder in due course since it is not priv( to all acts and ti*einvolvin- the transfers or ne-otiation4 of the C" bills. Nu'ui added that the "SP7s action shall be-overned b( C" Circular No. 1=, as a*ended.1<

On Nove*ber &<, &33$, the PD" also as)ed "SP Deput( overnor Ed-ardo Hialcita that +i anotation in the "SP7s boo)s be *ade a-ainst the transfer, echan-e, or pa(*ent of the bonds andthe pa(*ent of interest thereon6 and +ii the presenter of the bonds upon *aturit( be re'uired tosub*it proof as a holder in due course +of the first set of C" bills. he PD" relied on Section &0 +d$ of C" Circular No. 1=.1= his provision reads?

+$ 9ssi-n*ents effected b( fraud A here the assi-n*ent of a re-istered bond is secured b(

fraudulent representations, the Central "an) can -rant no relief if the assi-n*ent has been honored#ithout notice of fraud. Other#ise, the Central "an), upon receipt of notice that the assi-n*ent isclai*ed to have been secured b( fraudulent representations, or pa(*ent of the bond the pa(*ent of interest thereon, and #hen the bond is presented, #ill call upon the o#ner and the person presentin-the bond to substantiate their respective clai*s.If it then appears that the person presentin- thebond stands in the position of bonafide holder for value, the Central "an), after -ivin- the o#ner anopportunit( to assert his clai*, #ill pass the bond for transfer, echan-e or pa(*ents, as the case*a( be, #ithout further 'uestion.



























In a Dece*ber 13, &33$ letter, Nu'ui a-ain denied the re'uest, reiteratin- the "SP7s previous stand.

In li-ht of these "SP responses and the i*pendin- *aturit( of the C" bills, the PD" filed 13 #ith theRC t#o separate petitions for Manda*us, Prohibition and Inunction #ith pra(er for Preli*inar(Inunction and e*porar( Restrainin- Order, doc)eted as Civil Case No. 3$!2122 +coverin- the firstset of C" bills and Civil Case 3$!21%$ +coverin- the second set of C" bills a-ainst Nu'ui, the "SP

and the RC"C.20

he PD" essentiall( clai*s that in both the 9pril &% transaction +involvin- the first set of C" bills andthe 9pril &3 transaction +involvin- the second set of C" bills, there #as no intent on its part totransfer title of the C" bills, as sho#n b( its non!issuance of a detached assi-n*ent in favor of the"OC and "ancap, respectivel(. he PD" particularl( alle-es that it *erel( 4#arehoused42& the firstset of C" bills #ith the "OC, as securit( collateral.

On Dece*ber 1=, &33$, the RC te*poraril( enoined Nu'ui and the "SP fro* pa(in- the facevalue of the C" bills on *aturit(.21 On /anuar( &0, &33%, the PD" filed an 9*ended Petition,additionall( i*pleadin- the "OC and 9ll 9sia.22 In a /anuar( &2, &33% Order, the cases #ereconsolidated.2$ On /anuar( &<, &33%, the RC -ranted the PD"7s application for a #rit of preli*inar(

prohibitor( inunction.2%

In both petitions, the PD" identicall( pra(ed?

8ERE:ORE, it is respectfull( pra(ed that, after due notice and hearin-, the rits ofManda*us, Prohibition and Inunction, be issued6 +i co**andin- the "SP and Nu'ui, or #hoever*a( ta)e her place !

+a to record forth#ith in the boo)s of "SP the clai* of PD" on the Jt#o sets ofK C" "ills inaccordance #ith Section &0 +d +$ of revised C.". Circular No. 1=6 and

+b also pursuant thereto, #hen the bills are presented on *aturit( date for pa(*ent, to call +i PD", +ii RC"C , +iii "OC , and +iv 9FF!9SI9 6 or #hoever #ill presentthe Jfirst and second sets ofK C" "ills for pa(*ent, to sub*it proof as to #ho stands as the holder in

due course of said bills, and, thereafter, act accordin-l(6

and +ii orderin- the "SP and Nu'ui to pa( ointl( and severall( to PD" the follo#in-?

+a the su* of P &00,000.00, as and for ee*plar( da*a-es6

+b the su* of at least P %00,000.00, or such a*ount as shall be proved at the trial, as andfor attorne(7s fees6

+c the le-al rate of interest fro* the filin- of this Petition until full pa(*ent of the su*s*entioned in this Petition6 and

+d the costs of suit.2>

9fter the petitions #ere filed, the "OC ac'uired5reac'uired all the nine C" bills A the first and secondsets of C" bills +collectivel(, subect C" bills.

Defenses of the "SP and of the "OC2<

he "OC filed its 9ns#er, pra(infor the dis*issal of the petition. It ar-ued that the PD" has nocause of action a-ainst it since the PD" is no lon-er the o#ner of the C" bills. Contrar( to the PD"7s























4#arehousin- theor(,42= the "OC asserted that the +i 9pril &% transaction and the +ii 9pril &3transaction A coverin- both sets of C" bills ! #ere valid contracts of sale, follo#ed b( a transfer oftitle +i to the "OC +in the 9pril &% transaction upon the PD"7s deliver( of the &st set of C" bills insubstitution of the reasur( "ills the PD" ori-inall( intended to sell, and +ii to "ancap +in the 9pril &3transaction upon the PD"7s deliver( of the 1nd set of C" bills to "ancap, li)e#ise b( #a( ofsubstitution.

he "OC adds that Section &0 +d $ of C" Circular No. 1= cannot appl( to the PD"7s case because+i the PD" is not in possession of the C" bills and +ii the "OC ac'uired these bills fro* the PD", asto the &st set of C" bills, and fro* "ancap, as to the 1nd set of C" bills, in -ood faith and for value.he "OC also asserted a co*pulsor( counterclai* for da*a-es and attorne(7s fees.

On the other hand, the "SP countered that the PD" cannot invo)e Section &0 +d $ of C" CircularNo. 1= because this section applies onl( to an 4o#ner4 and a 4person presentin- the bond,4 of #hichthe PD" is neither. he PD" has not presented to the "SP an( assi-n*ent of the subect C" bills,dul( recorded in the "SP7s boo)s, in its favor to clothe it #ith the status of an 4o#ner.423 9ccordin- tothe "SP A

Section &0 d. +$ applies onl( to a re-istered bond #hich is assi-ned. 9nd the issuance of C" "ills are re'uired to be recorded5re-istered in "SP7s boo)s. In this re-ard, Section $ a. +& of C"Circular 1= provides that re-istered bonds 4*a( be transferred onl( b( an assi-n*ent thereon dul(eecuted b( the re-istered o#ner or his dul( authori;ed representative and dul( recorded onthe boo)s of the Central "an).4

he alle-ed assi-n*ent of subect C" "ills in PD"7s favor is not recorded5re-istered in "SP7sboo)s.$0+underscorin- supplied

Conse'uentl(, #hen Nu'ui and the "SP refused the PD"7s re'uest +to record its clai*, the( #ere

*erel( perfor*in- their duties in accordance #ith C" Circular No. 1=.

9lternativel(, the "SP as)ed that an interpleader suit be allo#ed bet#een and a*on- the clai*antsto the subect C" bills on the position that #hile it is able and #illin- to pa( the subect C" bills7 facevalue, it is dut( bound to ensure that pa(*ent is *ade to the ri-htful o#ner. he "SP pra(ed that

ud-*ent be rendered?

a. Orderin- the dis*issal of the PD"7s petition for lac) of *erit6

b. Deter*inin- #hich bet#een5a*on- JPD"K and the other clai*ants is5are la#full( entitledto the o#nership of the subect C" bills and the proceeds thereof6

c. 6

d. Orderin- PD" to pa( "SP and Nu'ui such actual5co*pensator( and ee*plar(da*a-esG as the RC *a( dee* #arranted6 and

e. Orderin- PD" to pa( Nu'ui *oral da*a-esG and to pa( the costs of the suit.$&

Subse'uent events












he PD" a-reed #ith the "SP7s alternative response for an interpleader A

$. PD" a-rees that the various clai*ants should no# interplead and substantiate their respectiveclai*s on the subect C" bills. 8o#ever, the total face value of the subect C" bills should bedeposited in escro# #ith a private ban) to be disposed of onl( upon order of the RC.$1

9ccordin-l(, on /une 3, &33%$2 and 9u-ust $, &33%,$$ the "OC and the PD" entered into t#oseparate Escro# 9-ree*ents.$% he first a-ree*ent covered the first set of C" bills, #hile thesecond a-ree*ent covered the second set of C" bills. he parties a-reed to ointl( collect fro* the"SP the *aturit( proceeds of these C" bills and to deposit said a*ount in escro#, 4pendin- finaldeter*ination b( Court ud-*ent, or a*icable settle*ent as to #ho shall be eventuall( entitledthereto.4$> he "OC and the PD" filed a /oint Motion,$< sub*ittin- these Escro# 9-ree*ents forcourt approval. he RC -ave its approval to the parties7 /oint Motion.$= 9ccordin-l(, the "SPreleased the *aturit( proceeds of the C" bills b( creditin- the De*and Deposit 9ccount of the PD"and of the "OC #ith %0L each of the *aturit( proceeds of the a*ount in escro#.$3

In vie# of the "OC7s ac'uisition of all the C" bills, 9ll 9sia%0 *oved to be dropped as a respondent+#ith the PD"7s confor*it(%&, #hich the RC -ranted.%1 he RC"C subse'uentl( follo#ed suit.%2

In li-ht of the develop*ents, on Ma( $, &33=, the RC re'uired the parties to *anifest their intentionre-ardin- the case and to infor* the court of an( a*icable settle*ent6 4other#ise, thJeK case shall bedis*issed for lac) of interest.4%$ Co*pl(in- #ith the RC7s order, the "OC *oved +i that the case beset for pre!trial and +ii for further proceedin- to resolve the re*ainin- issues bet#een the "OC andthe PD", particularl( on 4#ho has a better ri-ht over the subect C" bills.4 %% he PD" oined the "OCin its *otion.%>

On Septe*ber 1=, 1000, the RC -ranted the "SP7s *otion to interplead and, accordin-l(, re'uiredthe "OC to a*end its 9ns#er and for the conflictin- clai*ants to co**ent thereon. %< In October1000, the "OC filed its 9*ended Consolidated 9ns#er #ith Co*pulsor( Counterclai*, reiteratin- itsearlier ar-u*ents assertin- o#nership over the subect C" bills.%=

In the alternative, the "OC added that even assu*in- that there #as no effective transfer of the nineC" bills ulti*atel( to the "OC, the PD" re*ains obli-ated to deliver to the "OC, as bu(er in the 9pril&% transaction and ulti*ate successor!in!interest of the bu(er +"ancap in the 9pril &3 transaction,either the ori-inal subects of the sales or the value thereof, plus #hatever inco*e that *a( havebeen earned durin- the pendenc( of the case.%3

hat "OC pra(ed?

&. o declare "OC as the ri-htful o#ner of the nine +3 C" bills and as the part( entitled tothe proceeds thereof as #ell as all inco*e earned pursuant to the t#o +1 Escro#

9-ree*ents entered into b( "OC and PD".

1. In the alternative, orderin- PD" to deliver the ori-inal subect of the sales transactions orthe value thereof and #hatever inco*e earned b( #a( of interest at prevailin- rate.

ithout an( opposition or obection fro* the PD", on :ebruar( 12, 100&, the RC ad*itted>0 the"OC7s 9*ended Consolidated 9ns#er #ith Co*pulsor( Counterclai*s.

In Ma( 100&, the PD" filed an O*nibus Motion,>& 'uestionin- the RC7s urisdiction over the "OC7s4additional counterclai*s.4 he PD" ar-ues that its petitions pra( for the "SP +not the RC to












































deter*ine #ho a*on- the conflictin- clai*ants to the C" bills stands in the position of the bona fideholder for value. he RC cannot entertain the "OC7s counterclai*, re-ardless of its nature,because it is the "SP #hich has urisdiction to deter*ine #ho is entitled to receive the proceeds ofthe C" bills.

he "OC opposed>1 the PD"7s O*nibus Motion. he PD" filed its Repl(.>2

In a /anuar( &0, 1001 Order, the RC dis*issed the PD"7s petition, the "OC7s counterclai* and the"SP7s counter!co*plaint5cross!clai* for interpleader, holdin- that under C" Circular No. 1=, it hasno urisdiction +i over the "OC7s 4counterclai*s4 and +ii to resolve the issue of o#nership of the C"bills.>$ ith the denial of their separate *otions for Reconsideration,>% the "OC and the "SPseparatel( filed the present petitions for revie# on certiorari.>>

8E "OC7S and 8E "SP7S PEIIONS

he "OC ar-ues that the present cases do not fall #ithin the li*ited provision of Section &0 +d $ ofC" Circular No. 1=, #hich conte*plates onl( of three situations? first, #here the fraudulentassi-n*ent is not coupled #ith a notice to the "SP, it can -rant no relief6 second, #here the

fraudulent assi-n*ent is coupled #ith a notice of fraud to the "SP, it #ill *a)e a notation a-ainst theassi-n*ent and re'uire the o#ner and the holder to substantiate their clai*s6 and third, #here thecase does not fall on either of the first t#o situations, the "SP #ill have to a#ait action on theassi-n*ent pendin- settle*ent of the case, #hether b( a-ree*ent or b( court order.

he PD"7s case cannot fall under the first t#o situations. ith particular re-ard to the secondsituation, C" Circular No. 1= re'uires that the conflict *ust be bet#een an 4o#ner4 and a 4holder,4for the "SP to eercise its li*ited urisdiction to resolve conflictin- clai*s6 and the #ord 4o#ner4 hererefers to the re-istered o#ner -ivin- notice of the fraud to the "SP. he PD", ho#ever, is not there-istered o#ner nor is it in possession +holder of the C" bills.>< Conse'uentl(, the PD"7s case canonl( falls under the third situation #hich leaves the RC, as a court of -eneral urisdiction, #ith theauthorit( to resolve the issue of o#nership of a re-istered bond +the C" bills not fallin- in either ofthe first t#o situations.

he "OC asserts that the polic( consideration supportive of its interpretation of C" Circular No. 1= isto have a reliable s(ste* to protect the re-istered o#ner6 should he file a notice #ith the "SP abouta fraudulent assi-n*ent of certain C" bills, the "SP si*pl( has to loo) at its boo)s to deter*ine #hois the o#ner of the C" bills fraudulentl( assi-ned. Since it is onl( the re-istered o#ner #ho co*plied#ith the "SP7s re'uire*ent of recordin- an assi-n*ent in the "SP7s boo)s, then 4the protective*antle of ad*inistrative proceedin-s4 should necessaril( benefit hi* onl(, #ithout etendin- thesa*e benefit to those #ho chose to i-nore the Circular7s re'uire*ent, li)e the PD".>=

9ssu*inar-uendo that the PD"7s case falls under the second situation A i.e., the "SP has urisdiction to resolve the issue of o#nership of the C" bills A the *ore recent C" Circular No. <>3!=0 +Rules and Re-ulations overnin- Central "an) Certificates of Indebtedness alread(

superseded C" Circular No. 1=, and, in particular, effectivel( a*ended Section &0 +d $ of C"Circular No. 1=. he pertinent provisions of C" Circular No. <>3!=0 read?

9ssi-n*ent 9ffected b( :raud. A 9n( assi-n*ent for transfer of o#nership of re-istered certificateobtained throu-h fraudulent representation if honored b( the Central "an) or an( of its authori;edservice a-encies shall not *a)e the Central "an) or a-enc( liable therefore unless it has previousfor*al notice of the fraud. he Central "an), upon notice under oath that the assi-n*ent #assecured throu-h fraudulent *eans, shall i**ediatel( issue and circulari;e a 4stop order4 a-ainst thetransfer, echan-e, rede*ption of the Certificate includin- the pa(*ent of interest coupons. he



















Central "an) or service a-enc( concerned shall continue to #ithhold action on the certificate untilsuch ti*e that the conflictin- clai*s have been finall( settled either b( a*icable settle*ent bet#eenthe parties or b( order of the Court.

nli)e C" Circular No. 1=, C" Circular No. <>3!=0 li*ited the "SP7s authorit( to the *ere issuanceand circulari;ation of a 4stop order4 a-ainst the transfer, echan-e and rede*ption upon s#orn

notice of a fraudulent assi-n*ent. nder this Circular, the "SP shall onl( continue to #ithhold actionuntil the dispute is ended b( an a*icable settle*ent or b( udicial deter*ination. iven the *orepassive stance of the "SP A the ver( a-enc( tas)ed to enforce the circulars involved ! under C"Circular No. <>3!=0, the RC7s dis*issal of the "OC7s counterclai*s is palpabl( erroneous.

Fastl(, since Nu'ui7s office +overn*ent Securities Depart*ent had alread( been abolished,>3 it canno lon-er adudicate the dispute under the second situation covered b( C" Circular No. 1=. heabolition of Nu'ui7s office is not onl( consistent #ith the "SP7s Charter but, *ore i*portantl(, #ith C"Circular No. <>3!=0, #hich re*oved the "SP7s adudicative authorit( over fraudulent assi-n*ents.

8E PD"7S COMMEN

he PD" clai*s that urisdiction is deter*ined b( the alle-ations in the co*plaint5petition and not b(the defenses set up in the ans#er .<0 In filin- the petition #ith the RC, the PD" *erel( see)s toco*pel the "SP to deter*ine, pursuant to C" Circular No. 1=, the part( le-all( entitled to theproceeds of the subect C" bills, #hich, as the PD" alle-ed, have been transferred throu-hfraudulent representations A an alle-ation #hich properl( reco-ni;ed the "SP7s urisdiction toresolve conflictin- clai*s of o#nership over the C" bills.

he PD" adds that under the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction, courts should refrain fro* deter*inin-a controvers( involvin- a 'uestion #hose resolution de*ands the eercise of sound ad*inistrativediscretion. In the present case, the "SP7s special )no#led-e and eperience in resolvin- disputes onsecurities, #hose assi-n*ent and tradin- are -overned b( the "SP7s rules, should be upheld.

he PD" counters that the "OC7s tri!fold interpretation of Section &0 +d $ of C" Circular No. 1=sanctions split urisdiction #hich is not favored6but even this tri!fold interpretation #hich, in thesecond situation, li*its the *eanin- of the 4o#ner4 to the re-istered o#ner is fla#ed. Section &0 +d$ ai*s to protect not ust the re-istered o#ner but an(one #ho has been deprived of his bond b(fraudulent representation in order to deter fraud in the secondar( tradin- of -overn*ent securities.

he PD" asserts that the eistence of C" Circular No. <>3!=0 or the abolition of Nu'ui7s office doesnot result in deprivin- the "SP of its urisdiction? first, C" Circular No. <>3!=0 epressl( provides thatC" Circular No. 1= shall have suppletor( application to C" Circular No. <>3!=06 and second, the"SP can al#a(s desi-nate an office to resolve the PD"7s clai* over the C" bills.

Fastl(, the PD" ar-ues that even assu*in- that the RC has urisdiction to resolve the issue ofo#nership of the C" bills, the RC has not ac'uired urisdiction over the "OC7s so!called

4co*pulsor(4 counterclai*s +#hich in truth is *erel( 4per*issive4 because of the "OC7s failure topa( the appropriate doc)et fees. hese counterclai*s should, therefore, be dis*issed andepun-ed fro* the record.

8E COR7S RFIN

e -rant the petitions.









9t the outset, #e note that the parties have not raised the validit( of either C" Circular No. 1= or C"Circular No. <>3!=0 as an issue. hat the parties lar-el( contest is the applicable circular in case ofan alle-edl( fraudulentl( assi-ned C" bill. he applicable circular, in turn, is deter*inative of theproper re*ed( available to the PD" and5or the "OC as clai*ants to the proceeds of the subect C"bills.

Indisputabl(, at the ti*e the PD" supposedl( invo)ed the urisdiction of the "SP in &33$ +b(re'uestin- for the annotation of its clai* over the subect C" bills in the "SP7s boo)s, C" CircularNo. <>3!=0 has lon- been in effect. herefore, the parties7 respective interpretations of the provisionof Section &0 +d $ of C" Circular No. 1= do not have an( si-nificance unless it is first establishedthat that Circular -overns the resolution of their conflictin- clai*s of o#nership. his conclusion isi*portant, -iven the supposed repeal or *odification of Section &0 +d $ of C" Circular No. 1= b( thefollo#in- provisions of C" Circular No. <>3!=0?

9RICFE BISPPFEMEN9F RFES

Section &. Central "an) Circular No. 1= A he provisions of Central "an) Circular No. 1= shall have

suppletor( application to *atters not speciall( covered b( these Rules.

9RICFE BIIE::ECIVI

Effectivit( A he rules and re-ulations herein prescribed shall ta)e effect upon approval b( theMonetar( "oard, Central "an) of the Philippines, and all circulars, *e*oranda, or office ordersinconsistent here#ith are revo)ed or *odified accordin-l(. +E*phases added

e a-ree #ith the PD" that in vie# of C" Circular No. 1=7s suppletor( application, an atte*pt tohar*oni;e the apparentl( conflictin- provisions is a prere'uisite before one *a( possibl( concludethat an a*end*ent or a repeal eists.<& Interestin-l(, ho#ever, even the PD" itself failed to sub*it

an interpretation based on its o#n position of har*oni;ation.

he repealin- clause of C" Circular No. <>3!=0 obviousl( did not epressl( repeal C" Circular No.1=6 in fact, it even provided for the suppletor( application of C" Circular No. 1= on 4*atters notspeciall( covered b(4 C" Circular No. <>3!=0. hile no epress repeal eists, the intent of C"Circular No. <>3!=0 to operate as an i*plied repeal,<1 or at least to a*end earlier C" circulars, issupported b( its tet 4revo)in-4 or 4*odifJ(in-4 4all circulars4 #hich are inconsistent #ith its ter*s.

9t the outset, #e stress that none of the parties disputes that the subect C" bills fall #ithin thecate-or( of a certificate or evidence of indebtedness and that these #ere issued b( the Central"an), no# the "SP. hus, even #ithout resortin- to statutor( construction aids, *atters involvin- thesubect C" bills should necessaril( be -overned b( C" Circular No. <>3!=0. Even -rantin-, ho#ever,that reliance on C" Circular No. <>3!=0 alone is not enou-h, #e find that C" Circular No. <>3!=0

i*pliedl( repeals C" Circular No. 1=.

9n i*plied repeal transpires #hen a substantial conflict eists bet#een the ne# and the prior la#s.In the absence of an epress repeal, a subse'uent la# cannot be construed as repealin- a prior la#unless an irreconcilable inconsistenc( and repu-nanc( eist in the ter*s of the ne# and the oldla#s.<2 Repeal b( i*plication is not favored, unless *anifestl( intended b( the le-islature, or unless itis convincin-l( and una*bi-uousl( de*onstrated, that the la#s or orders are clearl( repu-nant andpatentl( inconsistent #ith one another so that the( cannot co!eist6 the le-islature is presu*ed to)no# the eistin- la# and #ould epress a repeal if one is intended.<$











here are t#o instances of i*plied repeal. One ta)es place #hen the provisions in the t#o acts onthe sa*e subect *atter are irreconcilabl( contradictor(, in #hich case, the later act, to the etent ofthe conflict, constitutes an i*plied repeal of the earlier one. he other occurs #hen the later actcovers the #hole subect of the earlier one and is clearl( intended as a substitute6 thus, it #ill operateto repeal the earlier la#.<%

9 -eneral readin- of the t#o circulars sho#s that the second instance of i*plied repeal is present inthis case. C" Circular No. 1=, entitled 4Re-ulations overnin- Open Mar)et Operations,Stabili;ation of Securities Mar)et, Issue, Servicin- and Rede*ption of Public Debt,4 is a re-ulation-overnin- the servicin- and rede*ption of public debt, includin- the issue, inscription, re-istration,transfer, pa(*ent and replace*ent of bonds and securities representin- the public debt.<> On theother hand, C" Circular No. <>3!=0, entitled 4Rules and Re-ulations overnin- Central "an)Certificate of Indebtedness,4 is the -overnin- re-ulation on *atters<< +i involvin- certificate ofindebtedness<= issued b( the Central "an) itself and +ii #hich are si*ilarl( covered b( C" CircularNo. 1=.

he C" Monetar( "oard issued C" Circular No. 1= to re-ulate the servicin- and rede*ption ofpublic debt, pursuant to Section &1$ +no# Section &&3 of Republic 9ct R.9. No. <>%2 of the old

Central "an) la#

<3

#hich provides that 4the servicin- and rede*ption of the public debt shall also beeffected throu-h the "an-)o Sentral.4 8o#ever, even as R.9. No. <>%2 continued to reco-ni;e thisrole b( the "SP, the la# re'uired a phase!out of all fiscal a-enc( functions b( the "SP, includin-Section &&3 of R.9. No. <>%2.

In other #ords, even if C" Circular No. 1= applies broadl( to both -overn*ent!issued bonds andsecurities and Central "an)!issued evidence of indebtedness, -iven the present state of la#, C"Circular No. 1= and C" Circular No. <>3!=0 no# operate on the sa*e subect A Central "an)!issuedevidence of indebtedness. nder Section &, 9rticle BI of C" Circular No. <>3!=0, the continuedrelevance and application of C" Circular No. 1= #ould depend on the need to supple*ent an(deficienc( or silence in C" Circular No. <>3!=0 on a particular *atter.

In the present case, both C" Circular No. 1= and C" Circular No. <>3!=0 provide the "SP #ith a

course of action in case of an alle-edl( fraudulentl( assi-ned certificate of indebtedness. nder C"Circular No. 1=, in case of fraudulent assi-n*ents, the "SP #ould have to 4call upon the o#ner andthe person presentin- the bond to substantiate their respective clai*s4 and, fro* there, deter*ine#ho has a better ri-ht over the re-istered bond. On the other hand, under C" Circular No. <>3!=0,the "SP shall *erel( 4issue and circulari;e a stop order7 a-ainst the transfer, echan-e, rede*ptionof the Jre-isteredK certificate4 #ithout an( adudicative function +#hich is the precise root of thepresent controvers(. 9s the t#o circulars stand, the patent irreconcilabilit( of these t#o provisionsdoes not re'uire elaboration. Section %, 9rticle V of C" Circular No. <>3!=0 inescapabl( repealedSection &0 +d $ of C" Circular No. 1=.

he issue of "SP7s urisdiction, la( hidden

On that note, the Court could have #ritten finis to the present controvers( b( si*pl( sustainin- the"SP7s hands!off approach to the PD"7s proble* under C" Circular No. <>3!=0. 8o#ever, the

urisdictional provision of C" Circular No. <>3!=0 itself, in relation to C" Circular No. 1=, on the*atter of fraudulent assi-n*ent, has -iven rise to a 'uestion of urisdiction ! the core 'uestion of la#involved in these petitions ! #hich the Court cannot ust treat sub!silencio.

"roadl( spea)in-, urisdiction is the le-al po#er or authorit( to hear and deter*ine a cause.=0 In theeercise of udicial or 'uasi!udicial po#er, it refers to the authorit( of a court to hear and decide a



















case.=& In the contet of these petitions, #e har) bac) to the basic principles -overnin- the 'uestionof urisdiction over the subect *atter.

:irst, urisdiction over the subect *atter is deter*ined onl( b( the Constitution and b( la#.=1 9s a*atter of substantive la#, procedural rules alone can confer no urisdiction to courts or ad*inistrativea-encies.=2 In fact, an ad*inistrative a-enc(, actin- in its 'uasi!udicial capacit(, is a tribunal of

li*ited urisdiction and, as such, could #ield onl( such po#ers that are specificall( -ranted to it b(the enablin- statutes. In contrast, an RC is a court of -eneral urisdiction, i.e., it has urisdiction over cases #hose subect *atter does not fall #ithin the eclusive ori-inal urisdiction of an( court,tribunal or bod( eercisin- udicial or 'uasi!udicial functions.=$

Second, urisdiction over the subect *atter is deter*ined not b( the pleas set up b( the defendant inhis ans#er =%but b( the alle-ations in the co*plaint,=> irrespective of #hether the plaintiff is entitled tofavorable ud-*ent on the basis of his assertions.=< he reason is that the co*plaint is supposed tocontain a concise state*ent of the ulti*ate facts constitutin- the plaintiffs causes of action. ==

hird, urisdiction is deter*ined b( the la# in force at the ti*e of the filin- of the co*plaint. =3

Parentheticall(, the Court observes that none of the parties ever raised the issue of #hether the "SPcan si*pl( diso#n its urisdiction, assu*in- it has, b( the si*ple epedient of pro*ul-atin- a ne#circular +speciall( applicable to a certificate of indebtedness issued b( the "SP itself, inconsistent#ith an old circular, assertive of its li*ited urisdiction over o#nership issues arisin- fro* fraudulentassi-n*ents of a certificate of indebtedness. he PD", in particular, relied solel( and heavil( on C"Circular No. 1=.

In li-ht of the above principles pointin- to urisdiction as a *atter of substantive la#, the provisions of the la# itself that -ave C" Circular <>3!=0 its life and urisdiction *ust be ea*ined.

he Philippine Central "an)

On /anuar( 2, &3$3, Con-ress created the Central "an) of the Philippines +Central "an) as acorporate bod( #ith the pri*ar( obective of +i *aintainin- the internal and eternal *onetar(stabilit( in the Philippines6 and +ii preservin- the international value and the convertibilit( of thepeso.30 In line #ith these broad obectives, the Central "an) #as e*po#ered to issue rules andre-ulations 4necessar( for the effective dischar-e of the responsibilities and eercise of the po#ersassi-ned to the Monetar( "oard and to the Central "an).43&Specificall(, the Central "an) isauthori;ed to or-ani;e +other depart*ents for the efficient conduct of its business and #hosepo#ers and duties 4shall be deter*ined b( the Monetar( "oard, #ithin the authorit( -ranted to the"oard and the Central "an)431 under its ori-inal charter.

ith the &3<2 Constitution, the then Central "an) #as constitutionall( *ade as the countr(7s central*onetar( authorit( until such ti*e that Con-ress32 shall have established a central ban). he &3=<Constitution continued to reco-ni;e this function of the then Central "an) until Con-ress, pursuant to

the Constitution, created a ne# central *onetar( authorit( #hich later ca*e to be )no#n as the"an-)o Sentral n- Pilipinas.

nder the Ne# Central "an) 9ct +R.9. No. <>%2,3$ the "SP is -iven the responsibilit( of providin-polic( directions in the areas of *one(, ban)in- and credit6 it is -iven, too, the pri*ar( obective of*aintainin- price stabilit(, conducive to a balanced and sustainable -ro#th of the econo*(, and ofpro*otin- and *aintainin- *onetar( stabilit( and convertibilit( of the peso.3%





































he Constitution epressl( -rants the "SP, as the countr(7s central *onetar( authorit(, the po#er ofsupervision over the operation of ban)s, #hile leavin- #ith Con-ress the authorit( to define the"SP7s re-ulator( po#ers over the operations of finance co*panies and other institutions perfor*in-si*ilar functions. nder R.9. No. <>%2, the "SP7s po#ers and functions include +i supervision overthe operation of ban)s6 +ii re-ulation of operations of finance co*panies and non!ban) financialinstitutions perfor*in- 'uasi ban)in- functions6 +iii sole po#er and authorit( to issue currenc( #ithin

the Philippine territor(6 +iv en-a-inin forei-n echan-e transactions6 +v *a)in- rediscounts,discounts, loans and advances to ban)in- and other financial institutions to influence the volu*e ofcredit consistent #ith the obective of achievin- price stabilit(6 +vi en-a-inin open *ar)etoperations6 and +vii actin- as ban)er and financial advisor of the -overn*ent. 1âwphi1

On the "SP7s po#er of supervision over the operation of ban)s, Section $ of R.9. No. =<3& +heeneral "an)in- Fa# of 1000 elaborates as follo#s?

C89PER II 98ORI O: 8E "9NQO SENR9F

SECION $. Supervisor( Po#ers. he operations and activities of ban)s shall be subect to

supervision of the "an-)o Sentral. 4Supervision4 shall include the follo#in-?

$.&. he issuance of rules of conduct or the establish*ent of standards of operation forunifor* application to all institutions or functions covered, ta)in- into consideration thedistinctive character of the operations of institutions and the substantive si*ilarities ofspecific functions to #hich such rules, *odes or standards are to be applied6

$.1. he conduct of ea*ination to deter*ine co*pliance #ith la#s and re-ulations if thecircu*stances so #arrant as deter*ined b( the Monetar( "oard6

$.2. Overseein- to ascertain that la#s and re-ulations are co*plied #ith6

$.$. Re-ular investi-ation #hich shall not be oftener than once a (ear fro* the last date ofea*ination to deter*ine #hether an institution is conductin- its business on a safe orsound basis? Provided, hat the deficiencies5irre-ularities found b( or discovered b( an auditshall be i**ediatel( addressed6

$.%. In'uirin- into the solvenc( and li'uidit( of the institution +1!D6 or

$.>. Enforcin- pro*pt corrective action. +n

he "an-)o Sentral shall also have supervision over the operations of and eercise re-ulator(po#ers over 'uasi!ban)s, trust entities and other financial institutions #hich under special la#s aresubect to "an-)o Sentral supervision. +1!Ca

:or the purposes of this 9ct, 4'uasi!ban)s4 shall refer to entities en-a-ed in the borro#in- of fundsthrou-h the issuance, endorse*ent or assi-n*ent #ith recourse or acceptance of depositsubstitutes as defined in Section 3% of Republic 9ct No. <>%2 +hereafter the 4Ne# Central "an) 9ct4for purposes of relendin- or purchasin- of receivables and other obli-ations. Je*phasis oursK

hile this provision e*po#ers the "SP to oversee the operations and activities of ban)s to4ascertain that la#s and re-ulations are co*plied #ith,4 the eistence of the "SP7s urisdiction in thepresent dispute cannot rel( on this provision. he fact re*ains that the "SP alread( *ade )no#n to



the PD" its unfavorable position on the latter7s clai* of fraudulent assi-n*ent due to the latter7s o#nfailure to co*pl(3> #ith eistin- re-ulations?

In this connection, Section &0 +b 1 also re'uires that a 4Detached assi-n*ent #ill be reco-ni;ed oraccepted onl( upon previous notice to the Central "an) .4 In fact, in a *e*o dated Septe*ber12, &33& then C" overnor /ose F. Cuisia advised all ban)s +includin- PD" as follo#s?

In vie# recurrin- incidents ostensibl( disre-ardin- certain provisions of C" circular No. 1= +asa*ended coverin- assi-n*ents of re-istered bonds, all ban)s and all concerned are enoined toobserve strictl( the pertinent provisions of said C" Circular as hereunder 'uoted?

nder Section &0.b. +1

Detached assi-n*ent #ill be reco-ni;ed or accepted onl( upon previous notice to the Central"an) and its use is authori;ed onl( under the follo#in- circu*stances?

+a

+b

+c assi-n*ents of treasur( notes and certificates of indebtedness in re-istered for* #hichare not provided at the bac) thereof #ith assi-n*ent for*.

+d 9ssi-n*ent of securities #hich have chan-ed o#nership several ti*es.

+e

Non!co*pliance here#ith #ill constitute a basis for non!action or #ithholdin- of action onrede*ption5pa(*ent of interest coupons5transfer transactions or deno*inational echan-e that *a(be directl( affected thereb(. J"oldfacin- suppliedK

9-ain, the boo)s of the "SP do not sho# that the supposed assi-n*ent of subect C" "ills #as ever recorded in the "SP7s boo)s. J"oldfacin- suppliedK

8o#ever, the PD" faults the "SP for not recordin- the assi-n*ent of the C" bills in the PD"7s favordespite the fact that the PD" alread( re'uested the "SP to record its assi-n*ent in the "SP7s boo)sas earl( as /une 20, &33$.3<

he PD"7s clai* is not accurate. hat the PD" re'uested the "SP on that date #as not therecordin- of the assi-n*ent of the C" bills in its favor but the annotation of its clai* over the C" bills

at the ti*e #hen +i it #as no lon-er in possession of the C" bills, havin- been transferred fro* oneentit( to another and +ii all it has are the detached assi-n*ents, #hich the PD" has not sho#n to beco*pliant #ith Section &0 +b 1 above!'uoted. Obviousl(, the PD" cannot insist that the "SP ta)eco-ni;ance of its plaint #hen the basis of the "SP7s refusal under eistin- re-ulation, #hich the PD"is bound to observe, is the PD"7s o#n failure to co*pl( there#ith.

rue, the "SP eercises supervisor( po#ers +and re-ulator( po#ers over ban)s +and 'uasi ban)s.he issue presented before the Court, ho#ever, does not concern the "SP7s supervisor( po#er over ban)s as this po#er is understood under the eneral "an)in- Fa#. In fact, there is nothin- in the








PD"7s petition +even includin- the letters it sent to the "SP that #ould support the "SP7s urisdictionoutside of C" Circular No. 1=, under its po#er of supervision, over conflictin- clai*s to the proceedsof the C" bills.

"SP has 'uasi!udicial po#ers over aclass of cases #hich does not include

the adudication of o#nership of theC" bills in 'uestion

In nited Coconut Planters "an) v. E. an;on, Inc.,3= the Court considered the "SP as anad*inistrative a-enc(,33 eercisin- 'uasi!udicial functions throu-h its Monetar( "oard. It held?

9 'uasi!udicial a-enc( or bod( is an or-an of -overn*ent other than a court and other than ale-islature, #hich affects the ri-hts of private parties throu-h either adudication or rule!*a)in-. hever( definition of an ad*inistrative a-enc( includes its bein- vested #ith 'uasi!udicial po#ers. heever increasin- variet( of po#ers and functions -iven to ad*inistrative a-encies reco-ni;es theneed for the active intervention of ad*inistrative a-encies in *atters callin- for technical )no#led-eand speed in countless controversies #hich cannot possibl( be handled b( re-ular courts. 9 4'uasi!

udicial function4 is a ter* #hich applies to the action, discretion, etc., of public ad*inistrative officersor bodies, #ho are re'uired to investi-ate facts, or ascertain the eistence of facts, hold hearin-s,and dra# conclusions fro* the*, as a basis for their official action and to eercise discretion of a

udicial nature.

ndoubtedl(, the "SP Monetar( "oard is a 'uasi!udicial a-enc( eercisin- 'uasi!udicial po#ers orfunctions. 9s aptl( observed b( the Court of 9ppeals, the "SP Monetar( "oard is an independentcentral *onetar( authorit( and a bod( corporate #ith fiscal and ad*inistrative autono*(, *andatedto provide polic( directions in the areas of *one(, ban)in- and credit. It has po#er to issuesubpoena, to sue for conte*pt those refusin- to obe( the subpoena #ithout ustifiable reason, toad*inister oaths and co*pel presentation of boo)s, records and others, needed in its ea*ination,to i*pose fines and other sanctions and to issue cease and desist order. Section 2< of Republic 9ctNo. <>%2, in particular, eplicitl( provides that the "SP Monetar( "oard shall eercise its discretion

in deter*inin- #hether ad*inistrative sanctions should be i*posed on ban)s and 'uasi!ban)s,#hich necessaril( i*plies that the "SP Monetar( "oard *ust conduct so*e for* of investi-ation orhearin- re-ardin- the sa*e. Jcitations o*ittedK

he "SP is not si*pl( a corporate entit( but 'ualifies as an ad*inistrative a-enc( created, pursuantto constitutional *andate,&00 to carr( out a particular -overn*ental function.&0& o be able to perfor*its role as central *onetar( authorit(, the Constitution -ranted it fiscal and ad*inistrative autono*(.In -eneral, ad*inistrative a-encies eercise po#ers and5or functions #hich *a( be characteri;ed asad*inistrative, investi-ator(, re-ulator(, 'uasi!le-islative, or 'uasi!udicial, or a *i of these five, as*a( be conferred b( the Constitution or b( statute.&01

hile the ver( nature of an ad*inistrative a-enc( and the raison dtre for its creation &02 and

proliferation dictate a -rant of 'uasi!udicial po#er to it, the *atters over #hich it *a( eercise thispo#er *ust find sufficient anchora-e on its enablin- la#, either b( epress provision or b( necessar(i*plication. Once found, the 'uasi!udicial po#er parta)es of the nature of a li*ited and special

urisdiction, that is, to hear and deter*ine a class of cases #ithin its peculiar co*petence andepertise. In other #ords, the provisions of the enablin- statute are the (ardstic)s b( #hich the Court#ould *easure the 'uantu* of 'uasi!udicial po#ers an ad*inistrative a-enc( *a( eercise, asdefined in the enablin- act of such a-enc(.&0$



















Scattered provisions in R.9. No. <>%2 and R.9. No. =<3&, inter alia, eist, conferrin- urisdiction onthe "SP on certain *atters.&0% :or instance, under the situations conte*plated under Section 2>, par.1&0> +#here a ban) or 'uasi ban) persists in carr(in- on its business in an unla#ful or unsafe*anner and Section 2<&0< +#here the ban) or its officers #illfull( violate the ban)7s charter or b(!la#s, or the rules and re-ulations issued b( the Monetar( "oard of R.9. No. <>%2, the "SP *a(place an entit( under receivership and5or li'uidation or i*pose ad*inistrative sanctions upon the

entit( or its officers or directors.

9*on- its several functions under R.9. No. <>%2, the "SP is authori;ed to en-a-e in open *ar)etoperations and thereb( 4issue, place, bu( and sell freel( ne-otiable evidences of indebtedness of the"an-)o Sentral4 in the follo#in- *anner.

SEC. 30. Principles of Open Mar)et Operations. A he open *ar)et purchases and sales ofsecurities b( the "an-)o Sentral shall be *ade eclusivel( in accordance #ith its pri*ar( obectiveof achievin- price stabilit(.

SEC. 31. Issue and Ne-otiation of "an-)o Sentral Obli-ations. A In order to provide the "an-)oSentral #ith effective instru*ents for open *ar)et operations, the "an-)o Sentral *a(, subect tosuch rules and re-ulations as the Monetar( "oard *a( prescribe and in accordance #ith theprinciples stated in Section 30 of this 9ct, issue, place, bu( and sell freel( ne-otiable evidences ofindebtedness of the "an-)o Sentral? Provided, hat issuance of such certificates of indebtednessshall be *ade onl( in cases of etraordinar( *ove*ent in price levels. Said evidences ofindebtedness *a( be issued directl( a-ainst the international reserve of the "an-)o Sentral ora-ainst the securities #hich it has ac'uired under the provisions of Section 3& of this 9ct, or *a( beissued #ithout relation to specific t(pes of assets of the "an-)o Sentral.

he Monetar( "oard shall deter*ine the interest rates, *aturities and other characteristics of saidobli-ations of the "an-)o Sentral, and *a(, if it dee*s it advisable, deno*inate the obli-ations in-old or forei-n currencies.

Subect to the principles stated in Section 30 of this 9ct, the evidences of indebtedness of the"an-)o Sentral to #hich this section refers *a( be ac'uired b( the "an-)o Sentral before their*aturit(, either throu-h purchases in the open *ar)et or throu-h rede*ptions at par and b( lot if the"an-)o Sentral has reserved the ri-ht to *a)e such rede*ptions. he evidences of indebtednessac'uired or redee*ed b( the "an-)o Sentral shall not be included a*on- its assets, and shall bei**ediatel( retired and cancelled.&0= +italics supplied6 e*phases ours

he pri*ar( obective of the "SP is to *aintain price stabilit(.&03 he "SP has a nu*ber of *onetar(polic( instru*ents at its disposal to pro*ote price stabilit(. o increase or reduce li'uidit( in thefinancial s(ste*, the "SP uses open *ar)et operations, a*on- others.&&0 Open *ar)et operation isa *onetar( tool #here the "SP publicl( bu(s or sells -overn*ent securities&&& fro* +or to ban)s and

financial institutions in order to epand or contract the suppl( of *one(. "( controllin- the *one(suppl(, the "SP is able to eert so*e influence on the prices of -oods and services and achieve itsinflation obectives.&&1

Once the issue and5or sale of a securit( is *ade, the "SP #ould necessaril( *a)e a deter*ination,in accordance #ith its o#n rules, of the entit( entitled to receive the proceeds of the securit( upon its*aturit(. his deter*ination b( the "SP is an eercise of its ad*inistrative po#ers&&2 under the la#as an incident to its po#er to prescribe rules and re-ulations -overnin- open *ar)et operations toachieve the 4pri*ar( obective of achievin- price stabilit(.4&&$ 9s a *atter of necessit(, too, the sa*e























rules and re-ulations facilitate transaction #ith the "SP b( providin- for an orderl( *anner of,a*on- others, issuin-, transferrin-, echan-in- and pa(in- securities representin- public debt.

Si-nificantl(, #hen co*petin- clai*s of o#nership over the proceeds of the securities it has issuedare brou-ht before it, the la# has not -iven the "SP the 'uasi!udicial po#er to resolve theseco*petin- clai*s as part of its po#er to en-a-e in open *ar)et operations. Nothin- in the "SP7s

charter confers on the "SP the urisdiction or authorit( to deter*ine this )ind of clai*s, arisin- out ofa subse'uent transfer or assi-n*ent of evidence of indebtedness A a *atter that appropriatel( falls#ithin the co*petence of courts of -eneral urisdiction. hat the statute #ithholds this po#er fro* the"SP is onl( consistent #ith the funda*ental reasons for the creation of a Philippine central ban),that is, to la( do#n stable *onetar( polic( and eercise ban) supervisor( functions. hus, the "SP7sassu*ption of urisdiction over co*petin- clai*s cannot find even a stretched!out ustification underits corporate po#ers 4to do and perfor* an( and all thin-s that *a( be necessar( or proper to carr(out the purposes4 of R.9. No. <>%2. &&%

o reiterate, open *ar)et operation is a *onetar( polic( instru*ent that the "SP e*plo(s, a*on-others, to re-ulate the suppl( of *one( in the econo*( to influence the ti*in-, cost and availabilit(of *one( and credit, as #ell as other financial factors, for the purpose of stabili;in- the price

level.

&&>

hat the la# -rants the "SP is a continuin- role to shape and carr( out the countr(7s*onetar( polic( A not the authorit( to adudicate co*petin- clai*s of o#nership over the securities ithas issued A since this authorit( #ould not fall under the "SP7s purposes under its charter.

hile R.9. No. <>%2&&< e*po#ers the "SP to conduct ad*inistrative hearin-s and render ud-*entfor or a-ainst an entit( under its supervisor( and re-ulator( po#ers and even authori;es the "SPovernor to 4render decisions, or rulin-s on *atters re-ardin- application or enforce*ent ofla#s pertainin- to institutions supervised b( the "SP and la#s pertainin- to 'uasi!ban)s, as #ell asre-ulations, policies or instructions issued b( the Monetar( "oard,4 it is precisel( the tet of the"SP7s o#n re-ulation +#hose validit( is not here raised as an issue that points to the "SP7s li*itedrole in case of an alle-edl( fraudulent assi-n*ent to si*pl( +i issuin- and circulari;in- a 4stoporder4 a-ainst the transfer, echan-e, rede*ption of the certificate of indebtedness, includin- thepa(*ent of interest coupons, and +ii #ithholdin- action on the certificate.

9 si*ilar conclusion can be dra#n fro* the "SP7s ad*inistrative adudicator( po#er in cases of4#illful failure or refusal to co*pl( #ith, or violation of, an( ban)in- la# or an( order, instruction orre-ulation issued b( the Monetar( "oard, or an( order, instruction or rulin- b( the overnor.4&&= henon!co*pliance #ith the pertinent re'uire*ents under C" Circular No. 1=, as a*ended, deprives apart( fro* an( ri-ht to de*and pa(*ent fro* the "SP.

In other #ords, the -rant of 'uasi!udicial authorit( to the "SP cannot possibl( etend to situations#hich do not call for the eercise b( the "SP of its supervisor( or re-ulator( functions over entities#ithin its urisdiction.&&3

he fact alone that the parties involved are ban)in- institutions does not necessaril( call for the

eercise b( the "SP of its 'uasi!udicial po#ers under the la#.&10

he doctrine of pri*ar( urisdictionar-ues a-ainst "SP7s purportedauthorit( to adudicate o#nershipissues over the disputed C" bills

iven the precedin- discussions, even the PD"7s invocation of the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction is*isplaced.

















In the eercise of its plenar( le-islative po#er, Con-ress *a( create ad*inistrative a-enciesendo#ed #ith 'uasi!le-islative and 'uasi!udicial po#ers. Necessaril(, Con-ress li)e#ise defines theli*its of an a-enc(7s urisdiction in the sa*e *anner as it defines the urisdiction of courts.&1& 9s aresult, it *a( happen that either a court or an ad*inistrative a-enc( has eclusive urisdiction over aspecific *atter or both have concurrent urisdiction on the sa*e. It *a( happen, too, that courts anda-encies *a( #illin-l( relin'uish adudicator( po#er that is ri-htfull( theirs in favor of the other. One

of the instances #hen a court *a( properl( defer to the adudicator( authorit( of an a-enc( is theapplicabilit( of the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction. &11

9s earl( as &3%$, the Court applied the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction under the follo#inter*s?

>. In the fifties, the Court ta)inco-ni;ance of the *ove to vest urisdiction in ad*inistrativeco**issions and boards the po#er to resolve speciali;ed disputes ruled that Con-ress inre'uirin- the Industrial Courts intervention in the resolution of labor!*ana-e*ent controversies *eant such urisdiction to be eclusive, althou-h it did not so epressl( state in the la#. he Courtheld that under the 4sense!*a)in- and epeditious doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction ... the courtscannot or #ill not deter*ine a controvers( involvin- a 'uestion #hich is #ithin the urisdiction of anad*inistrative tribunal, #here the 'uestion de*ands the eercise of sound ad*inistrative discretion

re'uirin- the special )no#led-e, eperience, and services of the ad*inistrative tribunal to deter*inetechnical and intricate *atters of fact, and a unifor*it( of rulin- is essential to co*pl( #ith thepurposes of the re-ulator( statute ad*inistered.4&12 +e*phasis ours

In Industrial Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of 9ppeals,&1$ the Court ruled that #hile an action for rescissionof a contract bet#een coal developers appears to be an action co-ni;able b( re-ular courts, the trialcourt re*ains to be #ithout urisdiction to entertain the suit since the contract sou-ht to be rescindedis 4inetricabl( tied up #ith the ri-ht to develop coal!bearin- lands and the deter*ination of #hetheror not the reversion of the coal operatin- contract over the subect coal bloc)s to Jthe plaintiffK #ouldbe in line #ith the countr(7s national pro-ra* and obective on coal!develop*ent and over!all coal!suppl(!de*and balance.4 It then applied the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction A

In recent (ears, it has been the urisprudential trend to appl( the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction in

*an( cases involvin- *atters that de*and the special co*petence of ad*inistrative a-encies. It*a( occur that the Court has urisdiction to ta)e co-ni;ance of a particular case, #hich *eans thatthe *atter involved is also udicial in character. 8o#ever, if the case is such that its deter*inationre'uires the epertise, speciali;ed s)ills and )no#led-e of the proper ad*inistrative bodies becausetechnical *atters or intricate 'uestions of facts are involved, then relief *ust first be obtained in anad*inistrative proceedin- before a re*ed( #ill be supplied b( the courts even thou-h the *atter is#ithin the proper urisdiction of a court. his is the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction. It applies 4#here aclai* is ori-inall( co-ni;able in the courts, and co*es into pla( #henever enforce*ent of the clai*re'uires the resolution of issues #hich, under a re-ulator( sche*e, have been placed #ithin thespecial co*petence of an ad*inistrative bod(.4

Clearl(, the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction finds application in this case since the 'uestion of #hat

coal areas should be eploited and developed and #hich entit( should be -ranted coal operatin-contracts over said areas involves a technical deter*ination b( the "ureau of Ener-( Develop*entas the ad*inistrative a-enc( in possession of the speciali;ed epertise to act on the *atter. herial Court does not have the co*petence to decide *atters concernin- activities relative to theeploration, eploitation, develop*ent and etraction of *ineral resources li)e coal. hese issuespreclude an initial udicial deter*ination. Je*phases oursK

he absence of an( epress or i*plied statutor( po#er to adudicate conflictin- clai*s of o#nershipor entitle*ent to the proceeds of its certificates of indebtedness finds co*ple*ent in the si*ilar











absence of an( technical *atter that #ould call for the "SP7s special epertise or co*petence.&1% Infact, #hat the PD"7s petitions bear out is essentiall( the nature of the transaction it had #ith thesubse'uent transferees of the subect C" bills +"OC and "ancap and not an( *atter *oreappropriate for special deter*ination b( the "SP or an( ad*inistrative a-enc(.

In a si*ilar vein, it is #ell!settled that the interpretation -iven to a rule or re-ulation b( those char-ed

#ith its eecution is entitled to the -reatest #ei-ht b( the courts construin- such rule orre-ulation.&1> hile there are eceptions&1< to this rule, the PD" has not convinced us that adeparture is #arranted in this case. iven the non!applicabilit( of the doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction,the "SP7s o#n position, in li-ht of Circular No. <>3!=0, deserves respect fro* the Court.

Ordinaril(, cases involvin- the application of doctrine of pri*ar( urisdiction are initiated b( an actioninvo)in- the urisdiction of a court or ad*inistrative a-enc( to resolve the substantive le-al conflictbet#een the parties. In this sense, the present case is 'uite uni'ue since the court7s urisdiction #as,ori-inall(, invo)ed to co*pel an ad*inistrative a-enc( +the "SP to resolve the le-al conflict ofo#nership over the C" bills ! instead of obtainin- a udicial deter*ination of the sa*e dispute.

he re*ed( of interpleader

"ased on the uni'ue factual pre*ise of the present case, the RC acted correctl( in initiall(assu*in- urisdiction over the PD"7s petition for *anda*us, prohibition and inunction.&1= hile theRC a-reed +albeit erroneousl( #ith the PD"7s vie# +that the "SP has urisdiction, it, ho#ever,dis*issed not onl( the "OC7s5the "SP7s counterclai*s but the PD"7s petition itself as #ell, on the-round that it lac)s urisdiction.

his is plain error.

Not onl( the parties the*selves, but *ore so the courts, are bound b( the rule on non!#aiver of urisdiction.&13believes that urisdiction over the "OC7s counterclai*s and the "SP7scounterclai*5crossclai* for interpleader calls for the application of the doctrine of pri*ar(

urisdiction, the allo#ance of the PD"7s petition even beco*es i*perative because courts *a( raisethe issue of pri*ar( urisdiction sua sponte.&20

Of the three possible options available to the RC, the adoption of either of these t#o #ould lead thetrial court into serious le-al error? first, if it -ranted the PD"7s petition, its decision #ould have to beset aside on appeal because the "SP has no urisdiction as previousl( discussed6 and second #henit dis*issed the PD"7s petitions and the "OC7s counterclai*s on the -round that it lac)s urisdiction,the trial court seriousl( erred because precisel(, the resolution of the conflictin- clai*s over the C"bills falls #ithin its -eneral urisdiction.

ithout e*asculatin- its urisdiction, the RC could have properl( dis*issed the PD"7s petition buton the -round that *anda*us does not lie a-ainst the "SP6 but even this correct alternative is nolon-er plausible since the "SP, as a respondent belo#, alread( properl( brou-ht before the RC the

re*ainin- conflictin- clai*s over the subect C" bills b( #a( of a counterclai*5crossclai* forinterpleader. Section &, Rule >1 of the Rules of Court provides #hen an interpleader is proper?

SECION &. hen interpleader proper. A henever conflictin- clai*s upon the sa*e subect *atter are or *a( be *ade a-ainst a person #ho clai*s no interest #hatever in the subect *atter, or aninterest #hich in #hole or in part is not disputed b( the clai*ants, he *a( brin- an action a-ainst theconflictin- clai*ants to co*pel the* to interplead and liti-ate their several clai*s a*on-the*selves.
















he re*ed( of an action of interpleader &2& is desi-ned to protect a person a-ainst double veation inrespect of a sin-le liabilit(.< It re'uires, as an indispensable re'uisite, that conflictin- clai*s upon thesa*e subect *atter are or *a( be *ade a-ainst the sta)eholder +the possessor of the subect*atter #ho clai*s no interest #hatever in the subect *atter or an interest #hich in #hole or in partis not disputed b( the clai*ants.&21

hrou-h this re*ed(, the sta)eholder can oin all co*petin- clai*ants in a sin-le proceedin- todeter*ine conflictin- clai*s #ithout eposin- the sta)eholder to the possibilit( of havin- to pa( *orethan once on a sin-le liabilit(.&22

hen the court orders that the clai*ants liti-ate a*on- the*selves, in realit( a ne# actionarises,&2$ #here the clai*s of the interpleaders the*selves are brou-ht to the fore, the sta)eholderas plaintiff is rele-ated *erel( to the role of initiatin- the suit. In short, the re*ed( of interpleader,#hen proper, *erel( provides an avenue for the conflictin- clai*s on the sa*e subect *atter to bethreshed out in an action. Section 1 of Rule >1 provides?

SEC. 1. Order. A pon the filin- of the co*plaint, the court shall issue an order re'uirin- theconflictin- clai*ants to interplead #ith one another. If the interests of ustice so re'uire, the court

*a( direct in such order that the subect *atter be paid or delivered to the court.

his is precisel( #hat the RC did b( -rantin- the "SP7s *otion to interplead. he PD" itself4a-reed that the various clai*ants should no# interplead.4 hus, the PD" and the "OCsubse'uentl( entered into t#o separate escro# a-ree*ents, coverin- the C" bills, and sub*ittedthe* to the RC for approval.

In -rantin- the "SP7s *otion, the RC acted on the correct pre*ise that it has urisdiction to resolvethe parties7 conflictin- clai*s over the C" bills ! consistent #ith the rules and the parties7 conduct !and accordin-l( re'uired the "OC to a*end its ans#er and for the PD" to co**ent thereon.Suddenl(, ho#ever, the PD" *ade an about!face and 'uestioned the urisdiction of the RC.S#a(ed b( the PD"7s ar-u*ent, the RC dis*issed even the PD"7s petition ! #hich *eans that itdid not actuall( co*pel the "SP to resolve the "OC7s and the PD"7s clai*s.

ithout the *otion to interplead and the order -rantin- it, the RC could onl( dis*iss the PD"7spetition since it is the RC #hich has urisdiction to resolve the parties7 conflictin- clai*s A not the"SP. iven that the *otion to interplead has been actuall( filed, the RC could not have reall(-ranted the relief ori-inall( sou-ht in the PD"7s petition since the RC7s order -rantin- the "SP7s*otion to interplead ! to #hich the PD" in fact ac'uiesced into ! effectivel( resulted in the dis*issalof the PD"7s petition. his is not altered b( the fact that the PD" additionall( pra(ed in its petition forda*a-es, attorne(7s fees and costs of suit 4a-ainst the public respondents4 because the -rant of theorder to interplead effectivel( sustained the propriet( of the "SP7s resort to this procedural device.

Interpleader

&. as a special civil action

hat is 'uite uni'ue in this case is that the "SP did not initiate the interpleader suit throu-h anori-inal co*plaint but throu-h its 9ns#er. his circu*stance beco*es understandable if it isconsidered that insofar as the "SP is concerned, the PD" does not possess an( ri-ht to have itsclai* recorded in the "SP7s boo)s6 conse'uentl(, the PD" cannot properl( be considered even as apotential clai*ant to the proceeds of the C" bills upon *aturit(. hus, the interpleader #as onl( analternative position, *ade onl( in the "SP7s 9ns#er .&2%


















he re*ed( of interpleader, as a special civil action, is pri*aril( -overned b( the specific provisionsin Rule >1 of the Rules of Court and secondaril( b( the provisions applicable to ordinar( civilactions.&2> Indeed, Rule >1 does not epressl( authori;e the filin- of a co*plaint!in!interpleader aspart of, althou-h separate and independent fro*, the ans#er. Si*ilarl(, Section %, Rule >, in relationto Section &, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court&2< does not include a co*plaint!in!interpleader as aclai*,&2= a for* of defense,&23 or as an obection that a defendant *a( be allo#ed to put up in his

ans#er or in a *otion to dis*iss. his does not *ean, ho#ever, that the "SP7s 4counter!co*plaint5cross!clai* for interpleader4 runs counter to -eneral procedures.

9part fro* a pleadin-,&$0 the rules&$& allo# a part( to see) an affir*ative relief fro* the court throu-hthe procedural device of a *otion. hile captioned 49ns#er #ith counter co*plaint5cross!clai* forinterpleader,4 the RC understood this as in the nature of a *otion,&$1 see)in- relief #hich essentiall(consists in an order for the conflictin- clai*ants to liti-ate #ith each other so that 4pa(*ent is *adeto the ri-htful or le-iti*ate o#ner4&$2 of the subect C" bills.

he rules define a 4civil action4 as 4one b( #hich a part( sues another for the enforce*ent orprotection of a ri-ht, or the prevention or redress of a #ron-.4 Interpleader *a( be considered as asta)eholder7s re*ed( to prevent a #ron-, that is, fro* *a)in- pa(*ent to one not entitled to it,

thereb( renderin- itself vulnerable to la#suit5s fro* those le-all( entitled to pa(*ent.

Interpleader is a civil action *ade special b( the eistence of particular rules to -overn theuni'ueness of its application and operation. nder Section 1, Rule > of the Rules of Court, -overnin-ordinar( civil actions, a part(7s clai* is asserted 4in a co*plaint, counterclai*, cross!clai*, third+fourth, etc.!part( co*plaint, or co*plaint!in!intervention.4 In an interpleader suit, ho#ever, a clai*is not re'uired to be contained in an( of these pleadin-s but in the ans#er!+of the conflictin-clai*ants!in!interpleader. his clai* is different fro* the counter!clai* +or cross!clai*, third part(!co*plaint #hich is separatel( allo#ed under Section %, par. 1 of Rule >1.

1. the pa(*ent of doc)et fees coverin- "OC7s counterclai*

he PD" ar-ues that, even assu*in- that the RC has urisdiction over the issue of o#nership ofthe C" bills, the "OC7s failure to pa( the appropriate doc)et fees prevents the RC fro* ac'uirin-

urisdiction over the "OC7s 4counterclai*s.4

e disa-ree #ith the PD".

o reiterate and recall, the order -rantin- the 4PD"7s *otion to interplead,4 alread( resulted in thedis*issal of the PD"7s petition. he sa*e order re'uired the "OC to a*end its ans#er and for theconflictin- clai*ants to co**ent, presu*abl( to confor* to the nature of an ans#er!in interpleader.Perhaps, b( reason of the "OC7s deno*ination of its clai* as a 4co*pulsor( counterclai*4 and thePD"7s failure to full( appreciate the RC7s order -rantin- the 4"SP7s *otion for interpleader4 +#iththe PD"7s confor*it(, the PD" *ista)enl( treated the "OC7s clai* as a 4per*issive counterclai*4#hich necessitates the pa(*ent of doc)et fees.

9s the precedin- discussions #ould sho#, ho#ever, the "OC7s 4clai*4 ! i.e., its assertion ofo#nership over the C" bills A is in realit( ust that, a 4clai*4 a-ainst the sta)eholder and not as a4counterclai*,4&$$ #hether co*pulsor(&$% or per*issive. It is onl( the "OC7s alternative pra(er +for thePD" to deliver to the "OC, as the bu(er in the 9pril &% transaction and the ulti*ate successor!in!interest of the bu(er in the 9pril &3 transaction, either the ori-inal subects of the sales or the valuethereof plus #hatever inco*e that *a( have been earned pendente lite and its pra(er for da*a-esthat are obviousl( co*pulsor( counterclai*s a-ainst the PD" and, therefore, does not re'uirepa(*ent of doc)et fees.&$>






























he PD" ta)es a contrar( position throu-h its insistence that a co*pulsor( counterclai* should beone #here the presence of third parties, of #ho* the court cannot ac'uire urisdiction, is notre'uired. It reasons out that since the RC"C and 9ll 9sia +the intervenin- holders of the C" billshave alread( been dropped fro* the case, then the "OC7s counterclai* *ust onl( be per*issive innature and the "OC should have paid the correct doc)et fees.

e see no reason to belabor this clai*. Even if #e -loss over the PD"7s o#n confor*it( to thedroppin- of these entities as parties, the "OC correctl( ar-ues that a re*ed( is provided under theRules. Section &1, Rule > of the Rules of Court reads?

SEC. &1. "rin-in- ne# parties. A hen the presence of parties other than those to the ori-inal actionis re'uired for the -rantin- of co*plete relief in the deter*ination of a counterclai* or cross!clai*,the court shall order the* to be brou-ht in as defendants, if urisdiction over the* can be obtained.

Even then, the strict characteri;ation of the "OC7s counterclai* is no lon-er *aterial in disposin- ofthe PD"7s ar-u*ent based on non!pa(*ent of doc)et fees.

hen an action is filed in court, the co*plaint *ust be acco*panied b( the pa(*ent of the re'uisite

doc)et and filin- fees b( the part( see)in- affir*ative relief fro* the court. It is the filin- of theco*plaint or appropriate initiator( pleadin-, acco*panied b( the pa(*ent of the prescribed doc)etfee, that vests a trial court #ith urisdiction over the clai* or the nature of the action.&$< 8o#ever, thenon!pa(*ent of the doc)et fee at the ti*e of filin- does not auto*aticall( cause the dis*issal of thecase, so lon- as the fee is paid #ithin the applicable prescriptive or re-le*entar( period, especiall(#hen the clai*ant de*onstrates a #illin-ness to abide b( the rules prescribin- such pa(*ent.&$=

In the present case, considerin- the lac) of a clear -uideline on the pa(*ent of doc)et fee b( theclai*ants in an interpleader suit, co*pounded b( the unusual *anner in #hich the interpleader suit#as initiated and the circu*stances surroundin- it, #e surel( cannot deduce fro* the "OC7s *erefailure to specif( in its pra(er the total a*ount of the C" bills it la(s clai* to +or the value of thesubects of the sales in the 9pril &% and 9pril &3 transactions, in its alternative pra(er an intention todefraud the -overn*ent that #ould #arrant the dis*issal of its clai*.&$3

9t an( rate, re-ardless of the nature of the "OC7s 4counterclai*s,4 for purposes of pa(*ent of filin-fees, both the "OC and the PD", properl( as defendants!in!interpleader, *ust be assessed thepa(*ent of the correct doc)et fee arisin- fro* their respective clai*s. he se*inal case of SunInsurance Office, Ftd. v. /ud-e 9suncion&%0provides us -uidance in the pa(*ent of doc)et fees, to#it?

&. here the filin- of the initiator( pleadin- is not acco*panied b( pa(*ent of thedoc)et fee, the court *a( allo# pa(*ent of the fee #ithin a reasonable ti*e but in no casebe(ond the applicable prescriptive or re-le*entar( period.

1. he sa*e rule applies to per*issive counterclai*s, third!part( clai*s and si*ilar

pleadin-s, #hich shall not be considered filed until and unless the filin- fee prescribedtherefor is paid. he court *a( also allo# pa(*ent of said fee #ithin a reasonable ti*e butalso in no case be(ond its applicable prescriptive or re-le*entar( period. Junderscorin-oursK

his *ust be the rule considerin- that Section <, Rule >1 of #hich reads?











SEC. <. Doc)et and other la#ful fees, costs and liti-ation epenses as liens. A he doc)et and otherla#ful fees paid b( the part( #ho filed a co*plaint under this Rule, as #ell as the costs and liti-ationepenses, shall constitute a lien or char-e upon the subect *atter of the action, unless the courtshall order other#ise.

onl( pertain to the doc)et and la#ful fees to be paid b( the one #ho initiated the interpleader suit,

and #ho

bank of commerce vs. planters bank

Documents