United Coconut Planters Bank vs. E. Ganzon, Inc.

The Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, orders, resolutions, or awards of the BSP Monetary Board in administrative cases against banks and their directors and officers via Petition for Review under Rule 43, the enumeration of quasi-judicial agencies in Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 being non-exclusive. Furthermore, an administrative agency's dismissal of a complaint constitutes a summary dismissal where it fails to consider the primary evidence and renders conclusions without explaining their bases, warranting remand for further proceedings.

E. Ganzon, Inc. (EGI) secured credit facilities from United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), mortgaging its condominium units. Following EGI's default during the Asian economic crisis, the parties executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and its amendment to settle the loan obligations through foreclosure and dacion en pago. After UCPB foreclosed on some properties at a price lower than the MOA valuation and applied the proceeds to the principal, a dispute arose over the remaining balance. During the signing of the dacion en pago for the remaining properties, EGI discovered that its outstanding balance had increased due to transaction costs. EGI subsequently obtained a UCPB Internal Memorandum showing two conflicting columns for loan figures: an "ACTUAL" amount and a higher "DISCLOSED TO EGI" amount. UCPB explained the discrepancy as a result of BSP rules prohibiting the accrual of interest on non-performing loans in bank books, while the disclosed amount reflected the contractual debt. EGI rejected this explanation and filed an administrative complaint with the BSP against UCPB and its officers for unsound banking practices.

• Loan and Default: From 1995 to 1998, EGI availed of credit facilities from UCPB, secured by mortgages on its condominium units. EGI defaulted in mid-1998 due to the Asian economic crisis.
• Settlement Agreement: On December 28, 1998, EGI and UCPB executed a MOA to settle the ₱915,838,822.50 loan obligation through foreclosure, dacion en pago, or other alternatives. An Amendment of Agreement on January 18, 2000, valued the properties to be transferred at ₱904,491,052.00.
• Foreclosure and Discrepancy: UCPB foreclosed some properties, but the April 13, 2000 Certificate of Sale showed proceeds of only ₱723,592,000.00—significantly less than the MOA valuation. UCPB applied the entire amount to the principal per BSP Circular No. 239, leaving a balance of ₱192,246,822.50.
• Dacion en Pago and Internal Memo: On May 8, 2001, EGI transferred other properties via dacion en pago valued at ₱166,127,369.50. EGI noticed the remaining balance had increased to ₱226,963,905.50 due to transaction costs. EGI reviewed its files and discovered a UCPB Internal Memorandum dated February 22, 2001, showing an "ACTUAL" balance of ₱146,849,412.58 and a "DISCLOSED TO EGI" balance of ₱226,967,194.80.
• Confrontation and Criminal Case: EGI demanded a refund and the return of titles. UCPB maintained the "ACTUAL" column reflected BSP rules on non-performing loans, while the "DISCLOSED" column reflected the contractual amount due. UCPB subsequently filed a theft/discovery of secrets case against EGI officers for obtaining the memo, which was dismissed.
• Administrative Complaint: On November 5, 2002, EGI filed an administrative complaint with the BSP against UCPB and its officers for violating Sections 36 and 37 of RA 7653 and Section 55.1(a) of RA 8791, and for irregular and unsound banking practices.

• UCPB (G.R. No. 168859):
  • Jurisdiction: Petitioner UCPB argued that the Court of Appeals lacked appellate jurisdiction over BSP Monetary Board decisions on administrative matters, as the BSP is not enumerated in Rule 43 or Section 9(3) of BP 129, nor is an appeal explicitly provided in RA 7653 or RA 8791.
  • Summary Dismissal: Petitioner UCPB maintained that the BSP did not summarily dismiss the complaint, having thoroughly reviewed records and arguments before issuing its decision based on evaluations by its Supervision and Examination Department I and Office of the General Counsel.
  • Respect for Findings: Petitioner UCPB insisted that the factual findings of the BSP Monetary Board are entitled to great respect and finality due to its specialized expertise, absent grave abuse of discretion.
• EGI (G.R. No. 168897):
  • Remand Error: Petitioner EGI argued that the CA erred in remanding the case to the BSP instead of acting on its findings, asserting that the CA already found UCPB committed serious irregularities.
  • Imposition of Sanctions: Petitioner EGI maintained that the CA should have directed the BSP to impose applicable administrative sanctions, as remanding would only cause delay and risk another dismissal by the BSP.

• EGI (in G.R. No. 168859): Respondent EGI argued that the BSP erred in dismissing the administrative complaint, emphasizing the significance of the UCPB Internal Memorandum showing two sets of loan figures.
• UCPB (in G.R. No. 168897): Respondent UCPB countered that the CA correctly remanded the case because it did not make conclusive findings of irregularity and the BSP possesses the specialized knowledge to evaluate banking practices.

• Appellate Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over final decisions of the BSP Monetary Board in administrative cases against banks and their officers.
• Summary Dismissal: Whether the BSP Monetary Board summarily dismissed the administrative complaint of EGI against UCPB.
• Remand vs. Imposition of Sanctions: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the case to the BSP for further proceedings instead of outrightly finding irregularity and directing the imposition of administrative sanctions.

• Appellate Jurisdiction: The Court of Appeals possesses appellate jurisdiction over BSP Monetary Board decisions in administrative cases. The enumerations of quasi-judicial agencies in Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 1 of Rule 43 are not exclusive, as indicated by the phrases "including" and "among these agencies are." The BSP Monetary Board exercises quasi-judicial functions—such as issuing subpoenas, imposing fines, and determining administrative sanctions—bringing it within the purview of appellate review. Salud v. Central Bank of the Philippines was distinguished; it involved insolvency proceedings under the old Central Bank Act where the law explicitly made the Monetary Board's determination final and executory, whereas RA 7653 allows judicial review and BSP Circular No. 477 expressly provides for appeals to the CA under Rule 43.
• Summary Dismissal: The BSP Monetary Board summarily dismissed the complaint. The Board's letter-decision contained sweeping conclusions without explaining their bases and failed to consider the primary evidence: the UCPB Internal Memorandum and the MOA. The Board did not address whether keeping two sets of figures or disclosing only the higher amount constituted unsound practice, nor did it explain why the foreclosure proceeds fell short of the MOA valuation or why documents for a suspicious loan outweighed evidence of irregularity.
• Remand vs. Imposition of Sanctions: The remand was proper. The Court of Appeals did not make conclusive findings that UCPB committed irregularities; it merely held that the BSP dismissed the complaint without sufficient basis. Because the BSP possesses the specialized knowledge and statutory mandate to determine what constitutes unsafe or unsound banking practices and to impose corresponding sanctions, it must be allowed to receive evidence and resolve the issues comprehensively in the first instance.

• Non-exclusivity of Rule 43 Enumeration — The list of quasi-judicial agencies in Section 9(3) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is not exclusive. The use of the word "including" and the phrase "among these agencies are" indicates that other agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions, such as the BSP Monetary Board, are deemed included.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings — Findings of fact by administrative agencies are accorded great weight, but an exception applies when such findings are not supported by substantial evidence—defined as relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Where findings lack rational probative force or fail to consider primary evidence, courts may make an independent evaluation.

• "The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply where other circumstances indicate that the enumeration was not intended to be exclusive, or where the enumeration is by way of example only."
• "It cannot be convincingly said herein that the factual findings of the BSP Monetary Board in its letter-decision dated 16 September 2003 was supported by substantial evidence since (1) most of the findings were not supported by references to specific evidence; and (2) the findings were made without consideration of the primary evidence presented by EGI."

• Salud v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 227 Phil. 551 (1986) — Distinguished. Salud ruled the CA had no jurisdiction over CBP Monetary Board resolutions regarding insolvency under the old Central Bank Act because the law explicitly made such determinations final and executory. The present case involves administrative sanctions under RA 7653, which allows judicial review.
• Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413 (1999) — Followed. Cited for the principle that expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply where an enumeration is by way of example only.
• Pepsi-Cola Distributors of the Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 338 Phil. 773 (1997) — Followed. Cited for the exception that courts can make independent evaluations of facts if administrative findings are not supported by substantial evidence.

• Section 9(3), Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) — Grants the Court of Appeals exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments of quasi-judicial agencies, using the word "including" before enumerating specific agencies, denoting a non-exclusive list.
• Section 1, Rule 43, 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure — Governs appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals. The phrase "[a]mong these agencies are" signifies the enumeration is not conclusive, allowing for the inclusion of the BSP Monetary Board.
• Sections 36 and 37, Republic Act No. 7653 (The New Central Bank Act) — Section 36 prescribes penalties for violations of the Act; Section 37 grants the Monetary Board discretion to impose administrative sanctions on banks for irregularities or unsafe/unsound practices, confirming its quasi-judicial nature.
• Section 30, Republic Act No. 7653 — Allows a petition for certiorari before a court when the BSP Monetary Board issues an order in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, even in liquidation cases, superseding the finality rule under the old Central Bank Act.

Ynares-Santiago, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, and Peralta.