Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) V.

Stockholder of Intercity Savings and

Loan Bank

G.R. no. 181556, December 14, 2009

Principle: Lex de future, judex de praeterito (The law provides for the future, the judge for the
past)

Facts:

 The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas filed on June 17, 1987 with the RTC of Makati for the
assistance in the Liquidation of Intercity Saving and Loan Bank, Inc. alleging that said
bank was already insolvent and its continuance in business would involve probable loss
to depositors, creditors and the general public.
 RTC gave due course to the petition. Petitioner PDIC was eventually substituted as the
therein petitioner, liquidator of Intercity Bank.
 In the meantime RA no. 9302 was enacted which provides that “after the payment of all
liabilities and claims against the closed bank, the corporation shall pay any surplus
dividends at the legal rate of rate interest form date of takeover to date of distribution to
creditors and claimants of the closed bank in accordance with legal priority before
distribution to the shareholders of the closed bank.
 Relying on R.A. no 9302 PDIC file a motion for approval of the final distribution of
Assets and termination of the Liquidation Proceedings.
 RTC Granted the prayer except for the final project of distribution and for authority of
PDIC to hold as trustee the liquidating and surplus dividends allocated for creditors of
intercity bank.
 With regards to the issue of the retroactive application, the court a quo rule in negative. It
said that to do so would run counter to the prevailing jurisprudence and unduly prejudice
Intercity bank shareholder, the creditors having been paid their principal claim in 2002 or
before the passage of RA 9302 in 2004
 PDIC appeal to CA but respondent move to dismiss the appeal arguing that the proper
recourse should be to the Supreme Court through a petition for Review on certiorari.
  CA dismissed the appeal, sustaining the main position of the respondent. PDIC filed a
MR but then denied. Hence this present petition

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sec 12 of RA. No 9302 should be applied retroactively in order to entitle
Intercity Bank Creditors to surplus dividend.

RULING:

The SC held that statue is prospective and not retroactive in their operation, they being
the formulation of rules for the future, not the past. Hence the legal maxim lex de futuro, judex
de praeterito- the law provide for the future the judge for the past, which is articulated in Art. 4
of the Civil Code: “laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided”. The
reason for the rule is the tendency of retroactive legislation to be unjust and oppressive on
account of its liabilities to unsettle vested rights or disturb the legal effect of prior transaction.
Further, a perusal of RA 9302 shows that nothing indeed therein authorizes its retroactive
application. In fact it’s effectivity clause indicate a clear legislative intent to the contrary. The
petition is denied