ARMANDO V. GATMAITAN,
(in behalf of Spouses Elbert and Ana
Milagros Gatmaitan)
Complainant,
-versus-
OSI-AC-No. 2012-030
RESOLUTION
This resolves the complaint filed against respondents Mary Ann Luz
(President), Jose Antonio R. Luz (Director and Treasurer), Alfredo R. Bautista
File/ Ref. No. OSI-O-
FACTS
complainant
submitted
the
following
alleged
genuine
Processing
(EDP)
Section.
It
further
states
that
No
on
the
foregoing
documents,
we
note
the
following
inconsistencies:
A. Based on the documents
submitted to the bank
Milagros
R.
Artigas
3
contains,
among
others,
the following:
City
or
Municipality
City
or
Municipality
Makati City
Manila
Local
118
3410
Name
Name
of
Hospital
or
institution at home
Civil
Registrar
of
institution
Hospital
Far
No.
or
Eastern
University Hospital
Usual residence of Mother
Province
at
1827
Santan
Dasmarias Village
of
Rizal,
Name
of
Child
ANA
Name
of
Child
ANA
12, 1974
1965
Luzviminda C. Royol
Elbert
C.
contains,
Gatmaitan
among
others,
the following:
Province Metro Manila
Province Manila
City
City
Manila
Local
168
2631
Metro Manila
U.N. Ave.
Name
of
Hospital
or
institution at home
or
Municipality
Civil
Name
of
Registrar
Hospital
No.
or
with
at 364 Libertad
address
at
1230
Rosario
Name of Child ELBERT
CAILAO GATMAITAN
CLAUDIO GATMAITAN
1978
1964
Father
Gatmaitan
Ernesto
A.
Father
Armando
V.
Gatmaitan
5
Mother
Mercedita
B.
Cailao
Mother
Concepcion
A.
Claudio
3. Certificate of Marriage of
Elbert C. Gatmaitan and
Ana Milagros R. Artigas
Province Metro Manila
Elbert C. Gatmaitan on 15
Elbert C. Gatmaitan on 21
Residence
Residence
Elbert
Elbert
Pasig City
Street,
Ana
Milagros
Artigas
Dasmarias
Vill.,
Makati City
Ana
Milagros
Artigas
Gatmaitan
Artigas
Artigas
and
Antonio
Name
of
Mother
Concepcion
Royol
Clarita Reyes
1999
Antonio
Claudio
Sanctuario
Parish,
De
and
San
Forbes
teller/cashier of RB Lobo Sto. Tomas Branch, she claims that her duty to
release the proceeds of the loan is purely ministerial. Also, she claims that
her participation in the loan account of spouses Gatmaitan was only in the
preparation of the check after the loan documents have been prepared,
processed and signed by various officers.
On the other hand, respondent Greg Mangahas sent an unsworn
letter stating that he resigned from the bank effective 30 March 2010.
He
admits that is a member of the credit committee but claims that he can no
longer remember the account mentioned. He is of the view that it is
neither his responsibility to ascertain the identity of the loan applicant nor
make sure that the Know your Client (KYC) rule is complied with but
rather it is the sole accountability of the Sto. Tomas Branch officers.
For his part, respondent Toradio R. Esplana denies the material
allegations of the complaint. He alleges that he did not in any way
participate in the processing, approval and release of the loan. He pointed
out that he was not yet the Compliance Officer of the bank during the
period when the loan was granted, as his employment with the bank was
only about five months or from 2 May 2011 to 31 October 2011. He claims
that his only participation in subject loan was when he wrote a letter
regarding the denial of complainants request for the cancellation of the
mortgage. He claims, too, that during his short stint, he started cleaning
the bank of potentially unsafe banking practices. He also admitted that
upon assumption as Compliance Officer, he conducted an honest to
goodness verification of the case at hand and found out that there were
two sets of titles covering the same lot but was not able to complete the
task due to his resignation in October 2011.
10
To support his
For their part, respondents Alfredo R. Bautista, Mary Ann R. Luz and
Jose Antonio R. Luz question the authority of Armando Gatmaitan in filing
the instant complaint against them as the Special Power of Attorney
allegedly did not give the latter the authority to sue or to defend on behalf
of his son and daughter-in-law.
against them.
They aver that while Armando Gatmaitan has the burden of showing
proof of falsification, however, the latter merely made assertions that the
documents were fake without presenting any concrete proof.
Thus,
respondents are of the view that there is no basis for declaring the
documents as being falsified. On the contrary, respondents contend that
the banks copy of the land title was accepted and annotated upon by the
Register of Deeds, hence, negating existence of any falsification. Further,
respondents maintain that the bank followed all procedures in granting the
loan to complainant.
unproven allegation of forgery against them could not be made a basis for
declaring them unfit and of questionable integrity to run the bank.
Anent the allegation of respondent bank officers utter unbecoming
conduct after being informed of the use of falsified documents in the loan
application, respondents deny bad faith or having shown any inappropriate
conduct in dealing with the complainants concern. On the contrary, they
insist that bank procedures were followed. As to the foreclosure of the
12
property during the public auction, respondents claim that the bank cannot
shirk from its duty to foreclose the property simply because the claim of
Gatmaitan is not yet proven.
RULING
We now resolve.
Before delving into the merits of the case, we will first resolve
respondents Luz and Bautistas allegation that Mr. Armando Gatmaitan is
wanting of authority to file the instant complaint in behalf of Spouses
Elbert and Milagros Gatmaitan.
We rule that the complaint has substantially complied with BSP
Circular 477, Series of 2005. It is of no moment that the Special Power of
Attorney executed by Spouses Elbert and Milagros Gatmaitan in favor of
their father-in-law, Armando Gatmaitan, did not specifically and expressly
contain the words to sue or to defend on behalf of his son and
daughter-in-law. For purposes of instituting this administrative complaint,
the following authority in favor of Armando Gatmaitan conferred in this
phrase is sufficient: to represent us in any forum necessary or called by/
for govt or private agency re- said loan It must be emphasized that the
instant case against respondent bank officers is an administrative case.
As such, it is axiomatic that in dealing with administrative cases, rules
must be liberally construed and applied. In the case of Reyes vs. Court of
Appeals et al. (G.R. No. 149580.
declared that the rules of procedure should not be strictly applied when it
would defeat the substantive rights of a party. The Supreme Court went
further by saying that rules of procedure are mere tools intended to
facilitate the attainment of justice, rather than frustrate it: A strict and
rigid application of the rules must always be eschewed when it would
subvert the primary objective of the rules, that is, to enhance fair trials
and expedite justice. Technicalities should never be used to defeat the
13
Know-Your-Client
15
considered in the development of effective customer due diligence, antimoney laundering and combating the financing of terrorism procedures.
should be retained for at least five (5) years after the transaction has
taken place.
8. These guidelines are divided into two (2) sections covering different
aspects of customer identification. Section A describes what types of
information should be collected and verified for natural persons seeking to
open accounts or perform transactions. Section B describes what types of
information should be collected and verified for institutions and is in two
(2) parts, the first relating to corporate vehicles and the second to other
types of institutions.
9. All the terms used in these guidelines have the same meaning as in the
Customer Due Diligence for Banks paper.
Section A. Natural Persons
10. For natural persons the following information should be obtained,
where applicable:
legal name and any other names used (such as maiden name);
correct permanent address (the full address should be obtained; a Post
Office box number is not sufficient);
telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address;
date and place of birth;
nationality;
occupation, public position held and/or name of employer;
an
official
person
identification
number
or
other
unique
19
14. From the information provided in paragraph 10, FIs should be able to
make an initial assessment of a customers risk profile. Particular attention
needs to be focused on those customers identified thereby as having a
higher risk profile and additional inquiries made or information obtained in
respect of those customers to include the following:
evidence of an individuals permanent address sought through a credit
reference agency search, or through independent verification by home
visits;
personal reference (i.e., by an existing customer of the same institution);
prior bank reference and contact with the bank regarding the customer;
source of wealth; and
verification of employment, public position held (where appropriate).
15. For one-off or occasional transactions where the amount of the
transaction or series of linked transactions does not exceed an established
minimum monetary value, it might be sufficient to require and record only
name and address.
16. It is important that the customer acceptance policy is not so restrictive
that it results in a denial of access by the general public to banking
services, especially for people who are financially or socially
disadvantaged.
In the instant case, we believe that the bank has followed the
foregoing guidelines. Records reveal that the bank required the borrowers
20
The certification,
states among others, that a certain Ernesto Dangan and Dolores Dangan
(driver/employee of Rural Bank of Lobo) appeared before the barangay
officials to verify the authenticity of a Barangay Clearance presented to the
bank by the borrowers under the name of Spouses Elbert and Ana Milagros
Gatmaitan.
As to the allegation that respondents did not review or conduct an
investigation of the identify the bank personnel who were allegedly remiss
in their duties, records reveal that the bank acted on the complaint and
sought from complainant some pertinent documents necessary for
investigation. While the result of the banks action does not meet
complainants satisfaction, it does not mean that the bank ignored his
request for inquiry.
As to the allegation that the bank has foreclosed and purchased the
lot during the public auction despite complainants complaint, we believe
that the bank has the right to protect its interest by exercising its legal
option under the circumstances considering that it parted money to the
borrowers using subject lot as collateral.
complainant has yet to prove his cause of action in a proper forum and no
22
restraining order was issued by competent court against the bank to enjoin
the foreclosure.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that
the administrative complaint against respondents be DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Manila, 18 April 2013.
EMERSON G. ROJAS
Legal Officer III
Recommending Approval:
JOSE R. FAJARDO
Deputy Director
Approved By:
ALFONSO C. PENACO IV
Director
23
Copy Furnished:
ARMANDO V. GATMAITAN
(Complainant)
25 Milkway, Blue Ridge,
1109 Quezon City
Atty. Wilfredo Avila
(Counsel for respondents
Mary Ann Luz and Antonio R. Luz)
4-C Magalang Street, Diliman,
Quezon City
MARY ANN LUZ
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
Lipa City Branch,
P. Torres corner G.A. Solis streets
Lipa City, Batangas
ANTONIO R. LUZ
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
LIpa City Branch,
P. Torres corner G.A. Solis streets
Lipa City, Batangas
ALFREDO R. BAUTISTA
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
24
Lipa City,
Batangas
RENATO L. LUBID
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
Sto. Tomas Branch
Gen. Malvar Street, Sto. Tomas
Batangas
DIORY GAVINO
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
Sto. Tomas Branch
Gen. Malvar Street, Sto. Tomas
Batangas
CATHERINE SALUBRE
(Respondent)
c/o Rural Bank of Lobo, Inc.
Sto. Tomas Branch
Gen. Malvar Street, Sto. Tomas
Batangas
TORADIO R. ESPLANA
(Respondent)
24 Rizal Street,
Pagsanjan,
Laguna
GREG MANGAHAS
(Respondent)
Planters Bank
25
Calamba Branch,
Laguna
26