TABLE OF CONTENTS time.

o She did not know anything about the business

Onapal v. CA 1 and did not understand the risks involved.
FPIB v. CA 2  Initially, Chua made a profit of P20,480 in three days.
 Later, she was made to deposit P300,000 to “pay the
difference” in prices.
Onapal v. CA / Ish  Chua then realized that she was actually engaged in
February 1, 1993 gambling.
ONAPAL PHILIPPINES COMMODITIES, INC., petitioner, vs. THE  This prompted her to ask for the withdrawal of her
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SUSAN investment, but Diaz refused to let her do so.
CHUA, respondents.  Chua then filed a collection suit before the RTC to recover
CAMPOS, JR., J. her investments.
 RTC: Trading Contract is actually a specie of gambling.
SUMMARY: Susan Chua entered into “Trading Contracts” with Null and void.
ONAPAL. She initially invested P500,000 and was guaranteed that  CA: Affirmed.
she could withdraw her investment any time. Later, Chua was  Hence, this petition.
made to give additional deposits. As she did not really know much  ONAPAL contends that the Trading Contract is a
about the business, she decided to withdraw her investments, but commodity futures contract within the contemplation of §2
ONAPAL’s officer Diaz told her that she could not do so as “some of the Revised Securities Act.
accounts were hanging on the transactions.” She brought suit  Also, it is covered by the Revised Rules and Regulations
before the RTC to recover her investments. The RTC ruled that the on Commodity Futures Trading issued by the SEC:
Trading Contract on “futures” is a specie of gambling and therefore
null and void. ONAPAL was ordered to refund the amounts "Commodity Futures Contract" shall refer to an agreement
invested by Chua. CA and SC affirmed. to buy or sell a specified quantity and grade of a
DOCTRINE: The term "futures" has grown out of those purely commodity at a future date at a price established at the
speculative transactions in which there are nominal contracts to sell floor of the exchange.
for future delivery, but where in fact no delivery is intended or
executed. The nominal seller does not have or expect to have a "Futures Commission Merchant/Broker" shall refer to a
stock of merchandise he purports to sell nor does the nominal corporation or partnership, which must be registered and
buyer expect to receive it or to pay for the price. Instead of that, a licensed as a Futures Commission Merchant/Broker and is
percentage or margin is paid, which is increased or diminished as engaged in soliciting or in accepting orders for the
the market rates go up and down, and accounted for to the buyer. purchase or sale of any commodity for future delivery on
This is simple speculation, gambling or wagering on prices within a or subject to the rules of the contract market and that, in
given time; it is not buying and selling and is illegal as against connection with such solicitation or acceptance of orders,
public policy. accepts any money, securities or property (or extends
credit in lieu thereof) to margin, guarantee or secure any
FACTS: trade or contract that results or may result therefrom.
 Petitioner ONAPAL Philippines Commodities, Inc., a duly
organized and existing corporation, was licensed as  ONAPAL also invokes Art. 1462 of the Civil Code, thus:
commission merchant/broker by the SEC, to engage in
commodity futures trading in Cebu City under Certificate of The goods which form the subject of a contract of sale
Registration No. CEB-182. may be either existing goods, owned or possessed by the
 On April 27, 1983, petitioner and private respondent seller, or goods to be manufactured, raised or acquired by
Susan Chua concluded a "Trading Contract". the seller after the perfection of the contract of sale, in this
o Like all customers of the petitioner, private Title called "future goods".
respondent was furnished regularly with
"Commodities Daily Quotations" showing daily There may be a contract of sale of goods, whose
movements of prices of commodity futures traded acquisition by the seller depends upon a contingency
and of market reports indicating the volume of which may or may not happen.
trade in different future exchanges in Hongkong,
Tokyo and other centers. History of “futures” contracts
o Every time a customer enters into a trading  In the late 1880's, trading in futures became rampant in
transaction with petitioner as broker, the trading the purchase and sale of cotton and grain in the United
order is communicated by telex to its principal, States, giving rise to unregulated trading exchanges
Frankwell Enterprises of Hongkong. known as "bucket shops".
o If the transaction, either buying or selling
 These were common in Chicago and New York City where
commodity futures, is consummated by the
cotton from the South and grain from the Mid-west were
principal, the petitioner issues a document known
constantly traded in.
as "Confirmation of Contract and Balance Sheet"
 Under the rules of the trading exchanges, weekly
to the customer.
settlements were required if there was any difference in
o An order of a customer of the petitioner is
the prices of the cotton between those obtaining at the
supposed to be transmitted from Cebu to
time of the contract and at the date of delivery so that
petitioner's office in Manila.
under the contract made by the purchaser, if the price of
o From Manila, it should be forwarded to Hongkong
cotton had advanced, he would have received in cash
and from there, transmitted to the Commodity
from the seller each week the advance (increase) in price
Futures Exchange in Japan.
and if cotton prices declined, the purchaser had to make
 According to private respondent Chua, ONAPAL’s
like payments to the seller. In the terminology of the
Account Executive Elizabeth Diaz invited her to invest in exchange, these payments are called "margins".
the commodity futures trading by depositing P500,000.
 Where the broker represented the buyer in buying and
o She was told she could withdraw her money any

BANKING: Week 7 | 1
 selling cotton for future delivery with himself extending import of the agreement as when no such delivery, actual
credit margins, and some of the transactions were closed or constructive, of the commodity or goods is made, and
at a profit while the others at a loss, payments being made final settlement is made by payment and receipt of only
of the difference in prices arising out of their rise or fall the difference in prices at the time of delivery from that
above or below the contract price, and the facts showed prevailing at the time the sale is made, the dealings in
that no actual delivery of cotton was contemplated, such futures become mere speculative contracts in which the
contracts are of the kind commonly called "futures". parties merely gamble on the rise or fall in prices.
 The contract falls within the ambit of Art. 2018, Civil Code:
Futures contracts without intending delivery
 The term "futures" has grown out of those purely If a contract which purports to be for the delivery of goods,
speculative transactions in which there are nominal securities or shares of stock is entered into with the
contracts to sell for future delivery, but where in fact no intention that the difference between the price stipulated
delivery is intended or executed. and the exchange or market price at the time of the
 The nominal seller does not have or expect to have a pretended delivery shall be paid by the loser to the winner,
stock of merchandise he purports to sell nor does the the transaction is null and void. The loser may recover
nominal buyer expect to receive it or to pay for the price. what he has paid.
Instead of that, a percentage or margin is paid, which is
increased or diminished as the market rates go up and  Under Article 2018, the private respondent is entitled to
down, and accounted for to the buyer. refund from the petitioner what she paid.
 This is simple speculation, gambling or wagering on prices
within a given time; it is not buying and selling and is DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
illegal as against public policy.

ISSUE #1: FPIB v. CA | Nice

 WoN the Trading Contract is a valid futures contract. January 24, 1996
(NO) FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK (Formerly
RATIO #1: Producers Bank of the Philippines) and MERCURIO
 The contract signed by private respondent purports to be RIVERA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CARLOS
for the delivery of goods with the intention that the EJERCITO, in substitution of DEMETRIO DEMETRIA, and
difference between the price stipulated and the exchange JOSE JANOLO, respondents.
or market price at the time of the pretended delivery shall PANGANIBAN, J.
be paid by the loser to the winner.
 The evidence of the plaintiff tend to show that in her NATURE: Rule 45 Petition
transactions with the defendant, the parties never intended SUMMARY: Demetrio and Janolo (D&J) wanted to buy properties
to make or accept delivery of any particular commodity but from Producers Bank (now FPIB). They sent an offer to Rivera,
the parties merely made a speculation on the rise or fall in Manager of Property Management Dept of the Bank, who then
the market of the contract price of the commodity, subject replied with a counter offer. D&J sent another offer, but was told in
of the transaction, on the pretended date of delivery so a subsequent meeting that the bank’s price in the earlier counter
that if the forecast was correct, one party would make a offer was already set. D&J then accepted the offer in a letter, but
profit, but if the forecast was wrong, one party would lose there was no reply from the Bank. The Bank’s conservator, after a
money. few months, repudiated the authority of Rivera to deal with D&J,
 According to ONAPAL, there was proof that the parties and subsequently refused to execute deeds of sale over the
intended a delivery since par. 10 of the rules for properties. D&J sued for specific performance, and the RTC and
commodity trading amply provides for actual delivery of CA ruled in their favor, holding that there was a perfected contract
the commodity subject of the transaction. of sale. The SC affirmed, holding that the Bank could not now
 SC upholds the CA. Court is convinced that there was no repudiate the authority of Rivera, under the doctrine of apparent
actual delivery intended. authority. Moreover, the Conservator cannot repudiate valid and
o ONAPAL employee’s testimony is to the effect binding obligations entered into by the Bank.
that all the defendant's customers were mere DOCTRINE:
speculators who merely forecast the rise or fall in  Moreover, while the Central Bank law gives vast and far-
the market of the commodity, subject of the reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be
transaction, below or above the contract price on pointed out that such powers must be related to the
the pretended date of delivery and, in fact, the "(preservation of) the assets of the bank, (the
defendant even discourages its customers from reorganization of) the management thereof and (the
taking or accepting delivery of any commodity by restoration of) its viability."
making it hard, if not impossible, for them to  Such powers, enormous and extensive as they are,
make or accept delivery of any commodity. cannot extend to the post-facto repudiation of perfected
o Par. 10 invoked by ONAPAL even requires the transactions, otherwise they would infringe against the
customer to apply for the necessary licenses and non-impairment clause of the Constitution.
documents with the proper government agency  To rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to
for the importation and exportation of any become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by simply
particular commodity. getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke all previous
 As a contract in printed form, prepared by petitioner and dealings which had one way or another or come to be
served on private respondent, for the latter's signature, the considered unfavorable to the Bank, yielding nothing to
trading contract bears all the indicia of a valid trading perfected contractual rights nor vested interests of the
contract because it complies with the Rules and third parties who had dealt with the Bank.
Regulations on Commodity Futures Trading as prescribed FACTS:
by the SEC.  First Philippine International Bank (the Bank) was formerly
 BUT when the transaction which was carried out to Producers Bank. Mercurio Rivera (Rivera) was Head-
implement the written contract deviates from the true Manager of the Property Management Department of the

BANKING: Week 7 | 2
 Bank. Carlos Ejercito is the assignee of original plaintiffs- the refusal of the tender of payment and the non-
appellees Demetrio Demetria and Jose Janolo. compliance with the obligations under what D&J
 Producers Bank acquired six parcels of land with a total considered to be a perfected contract of sale.
area of 101 hectares located at Don Jose, Sta. Rosa,  D&J filed a suit for specific performance with damages
Laguna. The property used to be owned by BYME against the Bank, Rivera and Encarnacion, alleging that
Investment and Development Corporation which had them the transaction with the bank was a perfected contract of
mortgaged with the bank as collateral for a loan. Demetria sale, The Bank took the position that there was no such
and Janolo (D&J) wanted to purchase the property and perfected sale because the Rivera is not authorized to sell
thus initiated negotiations for that purpose. the property, and that there was no meeting of the minds
 August 1987: Demetria and Janolo met with Rivera. The as to the price.
meeting was held pursuant to D&J’s plan to buy the  March 14, 1991: Henry L. Co (brother of Luis Co, SVP of
property. After the meeting, Janolo, following the advice of the Bank), through counsel Sycip Salazar Hernandez
Rivera, made a formal purchase offer to the bank through and Gatmaitan, filed a motion to intervene, alleging that
a letter dated August 30, 1987, offering 3.5 million in cash as owner of 80% of the Bank's outstanding shares of
for the 6 properties. stock, he had a substantial interest in resisting the
 On September 1, 1987, defendant Rivera made on behalf complaint. The trial court denied the motion to intervene
of the bank a formal reply by letter, which informed D&J on the ground that it was filed after trial had already been
that “the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 million for more concluded. MR denied. Henry Co did not appeal. (dito
than 101 hectares on lot basis.” nagtatapos ang kwento ng Sycip lol)
 On September 17, 1987, Janolo, responding to Rivera's  The trial court ruled in favor of D&J, declaring the
reply, wrote back, amending his previous offer and now existence of a perfected contract to buy and sell over the
proposing “to buy the said lot at P4.250 million in cash.” properties. It ordered the Bank to execute a deed of
 There was no reply to Janolo's letter of September 17, absolute sale over the properties after receipt of the 5.5
1987. What took place was a meeting on September 28, million, and to pay actual, moral, and exemplary damages
1987 between the D&J and Luis Co, the Senior Vice- and attorney’s fees.
President of the Bank. Rivera and the BYME lawyer  From the trial court's decision, the Bank, petitioner Rivera
Fajardo attended the meeting as well. On September 30, and conservator Encarnacion appealed to the CA which
1987, Janolo sent to the bank, through Rivera, another affirmed the judgment but deleted the damages.
letter, stating that:  July 11, 1992: during the pendency of the proceedings in
o “Pursuant to our discussion last 28 September the CA, Henry Co and several other stockholders of the
1987, we are pleased to inform you that we are Bank, through counsel ACCRA, filed an action —
accepting your offer for us to purchase the purportedly a "derivative suit" — with the RTC of Makati
property at Sta. Rosa, Laguna, formerly owned against Encarnacion, Demetria and Janolo "to declare any
by Byme Investment, for a total price of PESOS: perfected sale of the property as unenforceable." In his
FIVE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND answer, Janolo argued that this 2nd case was barred
(P5,500,000.00).” by litis pendentia by virtue of the case then pending in the
 On October 12, 1987, the conservator of the bank (which CA.
has been placed under conservatorship by the Central (ISSUE #4 is the important part)
Bank since 1984) was replaced by an Acting Conservator ISSUE #1:
in the person of Leonida T. Encarnacion. On November 4,  Was there forum-shopping on the part of the Bank?
1987, Rivera wrote Demetria a letter, stating that D&J’s (YES)
proposal to buy the properties “is under study yet as of this RATIO #1:
time by the newly created committee for submission to the  The test for determining whether a party violated the rule
newly designated Acting Conservator of the bank.” against forum shopping has been laid down in the 1986
 What thereafter transpired was a series of demands by case of Buan vs. Lopez. It exists where the elements
D&J for compliance by the Bank with what D&J of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in
considered as a perfected contract of sale, which one case will amount to res judicata in the other.
demands were in one form or another refused by the  It is obvious that there exist identity of parties or interests
bank. represented, identity of rights or causes and identity of
 On November 17, 1987, D&J through a letter to Rivera reliefs sought in the two cases.
tendered a check in the amount of P5.5 million "pursuant
 Very simply stated, the original complaint in the trial court
to (our) perfected sale agreement." D&J, in said letter,
was filed by the buyer against the seller to enforce the
wrote that the counter-offer dated September 1, 1987 in
alleged perfected sale of real estate. On the other hand,
the amount of P5.5 million was accepted thru the letter
the complaint in the 2nd case seeks to declare such
dated September 30, 1987 and received by the Bank.
purported sale involving the same real property "as
Hence, there was a perfected agreement. The Bank
unenforceable as against the Bank". In other words, in the
refused to receive both the payment and the letter.
2nd case, the majority stockholders, in representation of
Instead, the parcels of land involved in the transaction
the Bank, are seeking to accomplish what the Bank itself
were advertised by the bank for sale to any interested
failed to do in the original case in the trial court. In brief,
buyer. D&J demanded the execution by the bank of the
the objective or the relief being sought, though worded
documents on what was considered as a "perfected
differently, is the same, namely, to enable the Bank to
agreement."
escape from the obligation to sell the property to D&J.
 Four months passed. Then, on May 3, 1988, D&J, through
counsel, made a final demand for compliance by the bank
 In the instant case, there is also identity of parties, or at
least, of interests represented. Although the plaintiffs in
with its obligations under the considered perfected
the 2nd case (Henry L. Co. et al.) are not name parties in
contract of sale. In a reply letter dated May 12, 1988, the
the 1st case, they represent the same interest and entity,
Bank through Acting Conservator Encarnacion repudiated
namely, the Bank. This is the very essence of a derivative
the authority of Rivera and claimed that his dealings with
suit, in that the stockholders have brought suit "for and in
D&J, particularly his counter-offer of P5.5 Million are
behalf of the Producers Bank of the Philippines."
unauthorized or illegal. On that basis, the Bank justified

BANKING: Week 7 | 3
  Ultimately, what is important to consider in determining after Rivera had duly presented D&J’s offer to the
whether forum-shopping exists or not is the vexation Committee. Under the established facts, the price of P5.5
caused the courts and parties-litigant by a party who asks Million was, as clearly worded in Rivera's letter, the official
different courts and/or administrative agencies to rule on and definitive price at which the bank was selling the
the same or related causes and/or to grant the same or property.
substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating the  At any rate, the bank placed its official, Rivera, in a
possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered by the position of authority to accept offers to buy and negotiate
different fora upon the same issue. the sale by having the offer officially acted upon by the
 Hence, for violation of the rule against forum-shopping, the bank. The bank cannot turn around and later say, as it
Petitions should be dismissed. (But the SC went on to now does, that what Rivera states as the bank's action on
discuss substantive part.) the matter is not in fact so. It is a familiar doctrine, the
ISSUE #2 (MAIN): doctrine of ostensible authority, that if a corporation
 Was there a perfected contract of sale between the knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to
parties? (YES) do acts within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus
RATIO #2: holds him out to the public as possessing power to do
those acts, the corporation will, as against anyone who
As to authority of Rivera has in good faith dealt with the corporation through such
agent, he estopped from denying his authority.
 There is no dispute that the object of the transaction is that
property owned by the bank, and that the bank intended to  From the evidence found by the CA, it is obvious that
sell the property. It is also definite that D&J wanted to Rivera has apparent or implied authority to act for the
purchase the property and it was precisely for this purpose Bank in the matter of selling its acquired assets.
that they met with Rivera, Manager of the Property
Management Department of the bank. As to the counter-offer
 The procedure in the sale of acquired assets as well as  Bank: D&J’s P4.25 million counter-offer in the letter dated
the nature and scope of the authority of Rivera on the September 17, 1987 extinguished the Bank's offer of P5.5
matter is clearly delineated in the testimony of Rivera million. Hence, there was no meeting of minds when D&J
himself: "accepted" Rivera's earlier counter offer of P5.5 million.
o “The procedure runs this way: Acquired assets  SC: NO.
was turned over to me and then I published it in  As found by the CA, what was "accepted" by Janolo in his
the form of an inter-office memorandum letter dated September 30, 1987 was the Bank's offer of
distributed to all branches that these are acquired P5.5 million as confirmed and reiterated to Demetria and
assets for sale. I was instructed to advertise Atty. Jose Fajardo by Rivera and Co during their meeting
acquired assets for sale so on that basis, I have on September 28, 1987. Note that the said letter of
to entertain offer; to accept offer, formal offer and September 30, 1987 begins with"(p)ursuant to our
upon having been offered, I present it to the discussion last 28 September 1987…”
Committee. I provide the Committee with  Hence, assuming arguendo that the counter-offer of P4.25
necessary information about the property such as million extinguished the offer of P5.5 million, Luis Co's
original loan of the borrower, bid price during the reiteration of the said P5.5 million price during the
foreclosure, total claim of the bank, the appraised September 28, 1987 meeting revived the said offer. And
value at the time the property is being offered for by virtue of the September 30, 1987 letter accepting this
sale and then the information which are relative revived offer, there was a meeting of the minds, as the
to the evaluation of the bank to buy which the acceptance in said letter was absolute and unqualified.
Committee considers and it is the Committee that ISSUE #3:
evaluate as against the exposure of the bank and  Was the said contract enforceable under the statute of
it is also the Committee that submit to the frauds? (YES)
Conservator for final approval and once RATIO #3:
approved, we have to execute the deed of sale
 Bank: Even assuming that Luis Co or Rivera did relay a
and it is the Conservator that sign the deed of
verbal offer to sell at P5.5 million during the meeting of 28
sale, sir.”
September 1987, and it was this verbal offer that Demetria
 From the above, it shows that D&J dealt with and talked to and Janolo accepted with their letter of 30 September
the right person. They were dealing with the bank official 1987, the contract produced thereby would be
authorized to entertain offers, to accept offers and to unenforceable by action — there being no note,
present the offer to the Committee before which the said memorandum or writing subscribed by the Bank to
official is authorized to discuss information relative to price evidence such contract.
determination. Being inherent in his authority, Rivera is the
 SC: NO. The bank's letter of September 1, 1987 on the
officer from whom official information regarding the price,
official price and the plaintiffs' acceptance of the price on
as determined by the Committee and approved by the
September 30, 1987, are not, in themselves, formal
Conservator, can be had.
contracts of sale.
 As advised by Rivera, D&J made a formal offer by a letter o They are, however, clear embodiments of the fact
stating that they would buy at the price of P3.5 Million in that a contract of sale was perfected between the
cash. The letter was for the attention of Rivera who was parties, such contract being binding in whatever
tasked to convey and accept such offers. Considering that form it may have been entered into. Stated
Rivera was some sort of intermediary between the buyers simply, the banks' letter of September 1, 1987,
with their proposed buying price on one hand, and the taken together with plaintiffs' letter dated
bank Committee, the Conservator and the bank itself with September 30, 1987, constitute in law a sufficient
the set price on the other, there can be no other logical memorandum of a perfected contract of sale.
conclusion than that when Rivera informed D&J by letter
 And assuming arguendo that they are not enforceable
that "the bank's counter-offer is at P5.5 Million," such
under the statute of frauds, the statute of frauds will not
counter-offer price had been approved by the Conservator
apply by reason of the failure of the Bank to object to oral

BANKING: Week 7 | 4
 testimony proving its counter-offer of P5.5 million. Hence, DISPOSITION
the Bank, by such utter failure to object, are deemed to  Petition DENIED. CA affirmed.
have waived any defects of the contract under the statute
of frauds, pursuant to Article 1405 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE #4 (IMPT PART accdg to reviewer):
 Did the bank conservator have the unilateral power to
repudiate the authority of the bank officers and/or to
revoke the said contract? (NO)
RATIO #4:
 Bank: The conservator has the power to revoke or
overrule actions of the management or the board of
directors of a bank, under Section 28-A1 of the Central
Bank Act.
 There is absolutely no evidence that the Conservator, at
the time the contract was perfected, actually repudiated or
overruled said contract of sale. The Bank's acting
conservator at the time, Rodolfo Romey, never objected to
the sale of the property to D&J. The letter of Conservator
Encarnacion, who took over from Romey, unilaterally
repudiated NOT the contract, but the authority of Rivera to
make a binding offer, and which unarguably came months
after the perfection of the contract.
 Moreover, while the Central Bank law gives vast and far-
reaching powers to the conservator of a bank, it must be
pointed out that such powers must be related to the
"(preservation of) the assets of the bank, (the
reorganization of) the management thereof and (the
restoration of) its viability."
o Such powers, enormous and extensive as they
are, cannot extend to the post-
facto repudiation of perfected transactions,
otherwise they would infringe against the
non-impairment clause of the Constitution. If
the legislature itself cannot revoke an existing
valid contract, how can it delegate such non-
existent powers to the conservator under Section
28-A of said law?
 Therefore, Section 28-A merely gives the conservator
power to revoke contracts that are, under existing law,
deemed to be defective — i.e., void, voidable,
unenforceable or rescissible.
 The conservator merely takes the place of a bank's board
of directors. What the said board cannot do — such as
repudiating a contract validly entered into under the
doctrine of implied authority — the conservator cannot do
either. His power is not unilateral and he cannot simply
repudiate valid obligations of the Bank. His authority would
be only to bring court actions to assail such contracts —
as he has already done so in the instant case.
 To rule otherwise would be to enable a failing bank to
become solvent, at the expense of third parties, by
simply getting the conservator to unilaterally revoke
all previous dealings which had one way or another or
come to be considered unfavorable to the Bank,
yielding nothing to perfected contractual rights nor
vested interests of the third parties who had dealt with
the Bank.

1
Whenever, on the basis of a report submitted by the appropriate supervising or
examining department, the Monetary Board finds that a bank or a non-bank financial
intermediary performing quasi-banking functions is in a state of continuing inability or
unwillingness to maintain a state of liquidity deemed adequate to protect the interest of
depositors and creditors, the Monetary Board may appoint a conservator to take
charge of the assets, liabilities, and the management of that institution, collect all
monies and debts due said institution and exercise all powers necessary to preserve
the assets of the institution, reorganize the management thereof, and restore its
viability. He shall have the power to overrule or revoke the actions of the previous
management and board of directors of the bank or non-bank financial intermediary
performing quasi-banking functions, any provision of law to the contrary
notwithstanding, and such other powers as the Monetary Board shall deem necessary.

BANKING: Week 7 | 5