For over five years, depositors of AMA Rural Bank of Mandaluyong, Inc. (“AMA Bank”) have been left in limbo, unable to access their hard-earned money. Many of them, particularly senior citizens, have tirelessly pursued justice, hoping for a resolution that would allow them to reclaim their deposits. Their frustration has only deepened with each passing year, as the legal and bureaucratic entanglements continue to delay the reopening of the bank. Tragically, some of these depositors have passed away without seeing the resolution they long fought for.
On 1 March 2023, the First Division of the Supreme Court (“SC First Division”) issued a Resolution of even date (“First SC Resolution”) denying the respective SC Petitions of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (“BSP”) and the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (“PDIC”) and affirming the CA Decision. This ruling ordered BSP to reopen AMA Rural Bank within five days and mandated PDIC to return the seized funds and assets within the same period.
Then, in its Resolution dated 28 May 2024 (“Second SC Resolution”), the Supreme Court En Banc, denied “with finality” the Motions for Reconsideration of BSP and PDIC. Thereafter, the Supreme Court En Banc issued an Entry of Judgment confirming that the First and Second SC Resolutions, which affirmed the CA Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 163288, have become final and executory on 28 May 2024;
Following this decision, on March 5, 2025, a group of AMA Bank depositors once again visited BSP to make their voices heard. This visit follows previous efforts, including a formal letter addressed to BSP officials and a prior meeting, both of which sought clarity on the fate of their deposits. While BSP has repeatedly stated that it does not oppose the reopening of AMA Bank, its actions tell a different story.
The root of the problem lies in BSP’s second Motion for Reconsideration (M.R.) filed with the Supreme Court, a move that strongly opposes the reopening of AMA Bank. This contradiction has only fueled the depositors’ concerns. If BSP genuinely supports the reopening, why persist in legal maneuvers that prevent it? The depositors were informed that this second M.R. remains under Supreme Court deliberation, further prolonging the uncertainty surrounding their funds.
Adding to their plight, AMA Bank is being denied access to almost 2 billion pesos in legitimate funds currently held by PDIC, the Department of Education (“DepEd”), and BSP itself. Without these funds, even if AMA Bank were to be reopened, it would struggle to operate effectively. The depositors fear that forcing a reopening without financial backing and while the BSP second M.R. remains pending would only expose AMA Bank to contempt of court, further complicating the situation.
The prolonged suffering of AMA Bank depositors began on 7 November 2019, when BSP issued Monetary Board (“MB”) Resolution No. 1705.D (“MB Resolution No. 1705.D”) ordering the closure and liquidation of AMA Bank, designating PDIC as the receiver of AMA Bank, and directing PDIC to proceed with the takeover and liquidation of AMA Bank.
On 8 November 2019, PDIC, upon service of the Notice of Closure, implemented MB Resolution No. 1705.D and proceeded to take over the operations in AMA Bank’s Head Office in Mandaluyong City and nine (9) branches and three (3) Other Banking Offices (OBO) in various locations in the country, and took custody of all its records, documents, and assets, including cash assets.
However, in its Decision dated 7 September 2020 (“CA Decision”), the Court of Appeals granted, among others, AMA Bank’s CA Petition, by annulling and setting aside MB Resolution No. 1705.D and all acts done pursuant thereto, and directing PDIC to (i) return all records, documents, and assets which it seized from AMA BANK, and (ii) nullify the orders it issued in implementation of MB Resolution 1705.D.
In this CA Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the closure was unlawful and ordered BSP and PDIC to reopen the bank and return its seized assets. Despite this ruling, the bank has remained shuttered for more than four years now.
During the March 5, 2025 meeting between BSP and AMA Bank, BSP’s Deputy Governor Atty. Elmore Capule articulated BSP’s side of the issue. However, rather than providing a concrete resolution or a definitive plan of action, BSP, through Atty. Capule, asked the depositors to return after a month. This response only heightened the depositors’ disappointment, as they had expected a more substantial update or commitment from the central bank. Adding to their frustration, BSP did not issue an official statement regarding the meeting, leaving the depositors with more questions than answers.
Now, the depositors are making a direct appeal for BSP to:
1. Withdraw the second motion for reconsideration and allow the Supreme Court’s ruling to take effect without further delay.
2. Use its influence over PDIC, DepEd, and BSP itself to release AMA Bank’s rightful funds, ensuring that the institution can operate once more and fulfill its obligations to its depositors.
For the elderly depositors who have spent years waiting, time is no longer a luxury they can afford. Their call for justice is not just about financial restitution—it is about fairness, accountability, and respect for due process. The responsibility now lies with BSP to align its actions with its words and finally put an end to this prolonged financial nightmare.
The depositors of AMA Bank are not just asking for their money back—they are demanding the justice that has been long overdue. Their plea echoes louder than ever: BSP must act now.
Comments
Post a Comment