In an 11-page decision written by Associate Justice Josefina Guevarra Salonga, the CA also chastised the CBBOL’s "penchant for methodically filing a string of certiorari cases before this court and the SC almost every step of the proceedings" in an effort to delay the trial of the cases.

"Indeed, almost 13 years have already elapsed after the enactment of Republic Act No. 7653 (the law that abolished the Central Bank and created in its stead the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas on July 6, 1993) with the subject consolidated cases not having gone past the pre-trial stage," the CA said.

With the ruling, the CA dismissed the petition filed by the CBBOL challenging the decision of the Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) accepting the second amended/supplemental complaint filed by Banco Filipino impleading the BSP as successor-in-interest of the old CB.

"In fine, we find that public respondent (RTC) cannot be imputed with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed orders which find substantial support in law," the CA said.

"Wherefore, the foregoing considered, the petition is dismissed and the assailed orders are hereby affirmed in toto," the CA ruled.

Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Sesinando E. Villion concurred in the decision.

On July 27, 1984, the then CB headed by the late Jose "Jobo" Fernandez Jr., placed Banco Filipino under conservatorship through Monetary Board Resolution No. 955. Banco Filipino filed its first civil case denominated as CV No. 8108.

On Jan. 25, 1985, the then CB issued MB Resolution No. 75 that ordered the closure of Banco Filipino and placed it under receivership. The second civil case denominated as CV No. 9675 was filed by Banco Filipino.

On March 22, 1985, Banco Filipino was placed under liquidation, prompting the padlocked bank to file its third civil case denominated as CV No. 10183.

The three civil cases were ordered consolidated by the SC in a resolution dated Aug. 29, 1985. Six years later on Dec. 11, 1991, the SC annulled and set aside MB Resolution No. 75, ordered the reorganization and re-opening of Banco Filipino, and ruled that the closure was done "arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion."

Two years after the creation of BSP and the abolition of the then CB in 1993, Banco Filipino filed in 1995 its first amended/supplemental complaint against CBBOL and individual defendants Fernandez, Carlota Valenzuela, Arnulfo Aurellano, and Ramon Tiaoqui – all members of the MB at the time the bank was padlocked in 1985.

Despite the motion to dismiss the first amended/supplemental complaint, the RTC accepted it with a ruling that the CB continued to exist as the CBBOL not later than 25 years after its abolition.

In 2003, Banco Filipino filed its second amended/supplemental complaint before the RTC to include the BSP and its Monetary Board as additional party-defendants "to afford full and complete relief to the bank in the event that the 25-year period within which the CBBOL is to exist under RA 7653 expires."

On Jan. 2004, the Makati City RTC admitted the second amended/supplemental complaint. The CBBOL’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.

The denial of the motion for reconsideration prompted the CBBOL to elevate the issue before the CA attributing abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in accepting the second amended/supplemental complaint.

The CBBOL told the appellate court that the RTC abused its discretion in accepting the second amended/supplemental complaint filed by Banco Filipino since the amended/supplemental complaint constituted only a substitution or joining of a transferee pendente lite despite the fact that the BSP is being impleaded as an additional party-defendant for purposes of litigating completely new causes of action against it.

It also pointed out that the addition of new causes of action against the BSP would further delay the proceedings, aside from the fact that impleading BSP to succeed CBBOL on account of the latter’s limited lifetime is not a proper ground for substitution or joinder of parties.

In resolving the issue, the CA said:

"Far from being contradictory, the orders respectively admitting the first and second amended/supplemental complaints are consistent with each other in that the first order, the CB continues to exist and has remained a defendant but with a new name – CBBOL, while the BSP pursuant to RA 7653 is the sole successor-in-interest of the old CB and that the transfer of assets from the CB to the BSP during the pendency of the subject civil cases constitutes the latter as a transferee pendente lite. Thus, the confusion being claimed by the petitioner (CBBOL) is more imaginary than real and is mainly the result of its own manipulation or misrepresentation of facts.

"In seeking the amend the complaint for the second time, the grounds primarily advanced by private respondent (Banco Filipino) were the necessity of impleading the BSP and its Monetary Board by reason of the limited lifetime of petitioner CBBOL, and considering the long delay in the prosecution of the case.

"…the only change private respondent (Banco Filipino) seeks under the second amended/supplemental complaint is the addition of the BSP and its Monetary Board as parties-defendants being the successor-in-interest and transferee pendente lite of the CB and its Monetary Board, which successor-in-interest perpetuates the injurious practices of its predecessor-in-interest.

"As to the claim that the admission of the second amended/supplemental complaint would only result in further delay of the proceedings, the records are replete with evidence that petitioner (CBBOL) itself had manifested its penchant for methodically filing a string of certiorari cases before this court and the SC almost every step of the proceedings, including the instant petition, that private respondent precisely is seeking the amendment of its complaint to deal with such evident pattern."