Taxi operator sues Security Bank for alleged violation of Bayanihan laws

A taxi operator has filed a complaint before the Makati City Prosecutor’s Office against the officials of Security Bank for allegedly violating the provisions of two COVID-19 response laws.

Rolf Wiltschek, president of JRCD Subic Transport Corp., said the bank violated the Bayanihan to Heal as One Act (Republic Act 11469) and Bayanihan to Recover as One Act (RA 11494), which mandated a 30-day and 60-day grace period, respectively, for the payment of motor vehicle loans.

The complaint stemmed from JRCD’s failure to secure a provisional authority with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) last year due to incomplete requirements.

In this case, the LTFRB required JRCD to present the official receipts/certificates of registration (OR/CR) of the 30 motor vehicles that were in the custody of SBM Leasing Inc., a joint venture leasing company of Security Bank Corporation and Marubeni Corporation of Japan.

SBM Leasing, however, did not release the OR/CR for the vehicles because JRCD allegedly defaulted on its loans, the complaint said, citing the closure of its checking account with Security Bank last July 27. JRCD said the bank closed the account without prior notice and further explanation.

“Since we could not operate our taxi fleets to ply other routes, we were forced to close our operations,” the complaint stated.

“In other words, because of the auto-closure by Security Bank, our transport business is dead, and so is the income of our regular employees and 136 drivers and staff who benefited from this type of work for their families.”

JRCD argued that the two laws did not authorize the auto-closure of accounts of borrowers.

“Also, there is a clear violation of the provision of both laws that there are no other charges, interests or penalties until December 31, 2020 to be imposed on the customers during this time. However, as shown in the bank statements, Security Bank also charged and automatically deducted charges to the bank account of JRCD,” it said.

In response, the bank said the loan agreement was only between JRCD and SBM Leasing. It also said there is no criminal act on the part of the directors of the bank, who were named respondents in the complaint.

The bank added that it was under no obligation under the Bayanihan laws to grant any grace period since it was not the creditor.

It also clarified that JRCD was in default despite the mandatory grace period granted to it.

“It is worth noting that prior to the closure of the bank account, SBM Leasing acted in good faith by withholding the deposit of complainant’s postdated checks, as indicated in the latter’s own bank account statements,” the respondents said in their joint counter-affidavit.

“After the closure of the bank account, complainant and SBM Leasing simply renegotiated on the schedule of loan amortization payments, which led to the settlement of the last amortization payment. Thus, contrary to the complainant’s empty claims, the closure of the checking account did not prejudice, and in fact had no effect on its loan transactions with SBM Leasing.”

The respondents said they could not allow a “baseless criminal complaint” to tarnish their individual reputations and the bank's name even as they commiserated with JRCD over its financial woes amid the COVID-19 crisis.

The respondents are Frederick Dy, Alberto Villarosa, Anastasia Dy, Alfonso Salcedo, Jr., Diana Aguilar, Cirilo Noel, Takashi Takeuchi, Hiroshi Masaki, Sanjiv Vohra, Philip Ang, Gerard Brimo, Enrico Cruz, James J.K. Hung, Jikyeong Kang, and Napoleon Nazareno. —LDF, GMA News