Monday, September 11, 2023

Spouses Poon v. Prime Savings Bank, G.R. No. 183794, 13 June 2016

 

The closure of the bank was not independent of its will. The period during which the bank cannot do business due to insolvency is not a fortuitous event since there the government’s action through the BSP to place the bank under receivership or liquidation proceedings is tainted with arbitrariness or has acted without authority. As the lease was long-term, it was not lost on the parties that such an eventuality might occur, as it was in fact covered by the terms of their Contract.

In this case, it is neither fair nor reasonable to deprive depositors and creditors of what could be their last chance to recoup whatever bank assets or receivables the PDIC can still legally recover. Nothing has prevented petitioners from putting their building to other profitable uses, since respondent surrendered the premises immediately after the closure of its business.

No comments:

Post a Comment