Clarify Banco Filipino rulings, Palace tells Solicitor General | Inquirer News

Clarify Banco Filipino rulings, Palace tells Solicitor General

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda

Malacañang will ask Solicitor General Francis Jardaleza to clarify the two opposing rulings issued by two different divisions of the Court of Appeals regarding Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, a Palace official said Monday.

Presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda underscored the need for the CA to resolve the two rulings issued by the court’s Former Special 14th Division and its Former Special 10th Division on the BF case.

Article continues after this advertisement

Earlier this month, the 14th Division ordered the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to reopen BF and provide it with a P25-billion rehabilitation fund. But on February 14,  the 10th  division issued a ruling upholding the closure of BF.

FEATURED STORIES

“It’s internal. There are two divisions right now ruling on the same matter. So I think that should be resolved first by the CA,’’ Lacierda told reporters.

He said he wanted to find out if the two divisions were dealing with the same issue when they made their conflicting rulings.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We will ask the Solicitor General what happened, why there are two divisions of the CA ruling on the Banco Filipino case,’’ Lacierda said.

Article continues after this advertisement

Lacierda, however, made it clear that the Palace favored the BSP position “because it believes the BSP did not commit any error when it decided to close down Banco Filipino.’’

Barely two weeks ago, President Benigno Aquino III slammed the CA ruling made by the court’s 14th Division, particularly for the speed by which the court decided on the BF case.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: Banking, Court of Appeals

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.