CA denies TRO against Export and Industry Bank sale

The Court of Appeals on Monday denied the application for a temporary restraining order filed by five companies against the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. and the closed Export and Industry Bank aimed to stop the bidding of assets for the latter’s rehabilitation. The five companies that applied for TRO were Pacific Rehouse Corp., Forum Holdings Corp., East Asia Oil Co. Inc., Pacific Concorde Corp., and Mizpah Holdings Inc. The denial of the TRO/injunction application by the CA's Special Fifth Division affirmed an earlier decision by Makati's Regional Trial Court, Branch 146. The Appeals Court also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Pacific Rehouse et al., saying that the RTC had no authority to restrain or enjoin the PDIC as receiver of EIB, in accordance with Republic Act 3591, as amended or the PDIC Charter. PDIC president Valentin Araneta said that this development affirmed the PDIC’s authority as receiver of closed banks under the law., On April 27, 2012, the Banko Sentral ng Pilipinas declared EIB to be insolvent, closed it and placed it under PDIC receivership. At that time, the bank’s liabilities were estimated between P700 million and P800 million. The bidding for the rehabilitation of EIB failed in October 2012 and again in March 2013 due to the failure of any qualified investor to bid. On April 4, 2013, the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas ordered the PDIC to proceed with the liquidation of EIB after it was determined that the bank could no longer be rehabilitated. As the liquidator of EIB, the PDIC was set to file a petition for assistance in the liquidation of the shuttered bank with the liquidation court. The PDIC had wanted to start selling EIB's assets by May or June. The liquidation of the bank will involve collection and resolution of loan accounts, and disposal or sale of assets via bidding and negotiated sale. However, the bidding was delayed as the petitioners sued the stock brokerage subsidiary of EIB, E-Securities, and demanded the return of more than 32 million DMCI shares which the former sold without the petitioners’ consent. However, the courts had ruled that EIB and E-Securities were two different entities. — DVM, GMA News