Petitioner bank was a domestic corporation engaged in banking. Respondent Monetary Board issued a resolution prohibiting petitioner from doing business in the Philippines and placed it under receivership with PDIC as its receiver. On the basis of reports prepared by the PDIC stating that petitioner bank could not resume business, the Monetary Board directed PDIC to proceed with the liquidation. Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, contending that there was no complete examination conducted before the bank was closed.
Whether Section 30 of RA 7653 require a current and complete examination of the bank before it can be closed and placed under receivership.
Banco Filipino and other cases petitioners cite were decided using Section 29 of the old law. Thus in Banco Filipino, we ruled that an “examination [conducted] by the head of the appropriate supervising or examining department or his examiners or agents into the condition of the bank” is necessary before the MB can order its closure. However, RA 265, including Section 29 thereof, was expressly repealed by RA 7653 which took effect in 1993. Resolution No. 105 was issued on January 21, 2000. Hence, petitioners’ reliance on Banco Filipino which was decided under RA 265 was misplaced.
In RA 7653, only a “report of the head of the supervising or examining department” is necessary. This Court cannot look for or impose another meaning on the term “report” or to construe it as synonymous with “examination.” From the words used in Section 30, it is clear that RA 7653 no longer requires that an examination be made before the MB can issue a closure order. We cannot make it a requirement in the absence of legal basis.