Pre-termination-> they will terminate the proceeds/ account even before the maturity date Trust accounts are

not covered by the PDIC Liability arrives: PDIC will 1.)issue a Notice then published once a week for 3 consecutive of general.. or bank located. 2.) Posting of schedule Thereafter, they will aggregate 3.)computation the liabilities of per depositors Joint accounts- divide equally - insured separately; can claim separately Joint Account + Corporate- it is presumed its is the corp who would own everything. Prima facie. If two joint account, half then minus 500k. Law- not ty- bank will go liquidation. If you apply the provision, there are recourse. Transferred deposits A deposit in an insured bank made available to a depositor by the PDIC as payment of the insured deposit of the depositor in a closed bank and assumed by another insured bank. After deducting offsets Consistent with the rulings in Gullas vs. PNB, 62 Phil. 519 and Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 15012, July 22, 1975 recognizing the debtor-creditor relationship of the bank and the depositor, set-off takes place ipso jure with respect to the depositors bank deposit and his matured loan with the bank. Mode of Payment- cash, transfer deposits in another. To encourage depositiores tostill deposit their money Transfer DepositEffect of payment deposit- subrogation- preferred credit Duration- 6 months from the date of filling. No exact period according to circumstance. But shouldnt have grave abuse and not exceed 6 mos Prohibition against issuance of TRO- CA; SC if there is extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue PDIC v. CA gr no. 118917 1997 FACTS

Rosa Aquero (and 8 others) invested in money market placements with the Premiere Financing Corporation (Premiere) in the sum of P10,000.00 each for which they were issued by the PFC corresponding promissory notes and checks. Their lawyer, on the same day, went to PFC to encash, but they were referred to Regent savings Bank (Regent). Instead of paying these, Regent, in an agreement with the lawyer, issued 13 Certificates of Time Deposit (CTD), each stating that "that the same certifies that the bearer thereof has deposited with the RSB the sum of P10,000.00; that the certificate shall bear 14% interest per annum; that the certificate is INSURED up to P15,000.00 with the PDIC". Regent was not able to pay on maturity. In fact, the Central bank liquidated Regent. When Aquero et al filed a claim with the PDIC, it was rejected since the check (125k) that Premiere had issued in consideration for the CTDs had bounced;and said check was not replaced by the Premiere, resulting in the cancellation of the certificates as indebtedness or liabilities of Regent. Thus this collection case against PDIC. ISSUES 1) Are the CTDs negotiable instrument, and does it matter? 2) Does the fact that the CTDs state that the same were insured by the PDIC make PDIC liable? 3) Were the CTDs issued for consideration, and if not, what is the consequence? HELD 1) It doesn't matter. Whether the CTDs in question are negotiable or not is immaterial in the present case. The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation was created by law and, as such, is governed primarily by the provisions of the special law creating it. The liability of the PDIC for insured deposits therefore is statutory and such liability rests upon the existence of deposits with the insured bank, not on the negotiability or non-negotiability of the certificates evidencing these deposits. 2) NO. the deposit liability of PDIC is determined by the provisions of the law that created it, RA 3519, and statements in the certificates that the same are insured by PDIC are not binding upon the latter. 3) NO consideration. PDIC not liable. In order that a claim for deposit insurance with the PDIC may prosper, the law requires that a corresponding deposit be placed in the insured bank. The problem is that Regent did not receive anything in consideration for the CTDs it issued, since the check representing the vale of the CTDs (issued by Premiere) bounced; therefore no deposit ever came into existence. Accordingly, there is nothing here for PDIC to insure.

PDIC vs CA gr no. 126911 2003 Phil Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 126911, April 30, 2003 FACTS Prior to May 22, 1997, respondents had 71 certificates of time deposits denominated as "Golden Time Deposits" (GTD) with an aggregate face value of P1,115,889.96.1 On May 22, 1987, a Friday, the Monetary Board (MB) of the Central Bank of the Philippines, now Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, issued Resolution 5052 prohibiting MBC to do business in the

Philippines, and placing its assets and affairs under receivership. The Resolution, however, was not served on MBC until Tuesday the following week, or on May 26, 1987, when the designated Receiver took over. On May 25, 1987, the next banking day following the issuance of the MB Resolution, respondent Jose Abad was at the MBC at 9:00 a.m. for the purpose of pre-terminating the 71 aforementioned GTDs and re-depositing the fund represented thereby into 28 new GTDs in denominations of P40,000.00 or less under the names of herein respondents individually or jointly with each other. Of the 28 new GTDs, Jose Abad pre-terminated 8 and withdrew the value thereof in the total amount of P320,000.00. Respondents thereafter filed their claims with the PDIC for the payment of the remaining 20 insured GTDs. On February 11, 1988, PDIC paid respondents the value of 3 claims in the total amount of P120,000.00. PDIC, however, withheld payment of the 17 remaining claims after Washington Solidum, Deputy Receiver of MBC-Iloilo, submitted a report to the PDIC that there was massive conversion and substitution of trust and deposit accounts on May 25, 1987 at MBC-Iloilo. Because of the report, PDIC entertained serious reservation in recognizing respondents' GTDs as deposit liabilities of MBC-Iloilo. Thus, on August 30, 1991, it filed a petition for declaratory relief against respondents with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, for a judicial declaration determination of the insurability of respondents' GTDs at MBCIloilo. In their Answer respondents set up a counterclaim against PDIC whereby they asked for payment of their insured deposits. The trial court ordered petitioners to ordering it to pay the balance of the deposit insurance to respondents. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: Can the trial court order the payment of the balance even if the petition stemmed from a petition for declaratory relief which does not essentially entail an executory process? RULING YES. Without doubt, a petition for declaratory relief does not essentially entail an executory process. There is nothing in its nature, however, that prohibits a counterclaim from being set-up in the same action. A special civil action is after all not essentially different from an ordinary civil action, which is generally governed by Rules 1 to 56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals with a special subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation. But the identity between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil actions. Note: Under its charter, PDIC is liable only for deposits received by a bank "in the usual course of business." The MB passed a resolution prohibiting MBC from doing further business whiled the latter is under receivership. The Court held that the giving of the

GTDs is in the usual course of business since MBC and its clients could be given the benefit of the doubt that they were not aware that the MB resolution had been passed, given the necessity of confidentiality of placing a banking institution under receivership. Moreover, the issue of determining the amount of deposit insurance due respondent was never tried on the merits and cannot be raised for the first time in the petition at bar. While the MB issued Resolution 505 on May 22, 1987, a copy thereof was served on MBC only on May 26, 1987. MBC and its clients could be given the benefit of the doubt that they were not aware that the MB resolution had been passed, given the necessity of confidentiality of placing a banking institution under receivership.20 The evident implication of the law, therefore, is that the appointment of a receiver may be made by the Monetary Board without notice and hearing but its action is subject to judicial inquiry to insure the protection of the banking institution. Stated otherwise, due process does not necessarily require a prior hearing; a hearing or an opportunity to be heard may be subsequent to the closure. One can just imagine the dire consequences of a prior hearing: bank runs would be the order of the day, resulting in panic and hysteria. In the process, fortunes may be wiped out, and disillusionment will run the gamut of the entire banking community. (Emphasis supplied).21 Mere conjectures that MBC had actual knowledge of its impending closure do not suffice. The MB resolution could not thus have nullified respondents' transactions which occurred prior to May 26, 1987. That no actual money in bills and/or coins was handed by respondents to MBC does not mean that the transactions on the new GTDs did not involve money and that there was no consideration therefor. For the outstanding balance of respondents' 71 GTDs in MBC prior to May 26, 198722 in the amount of P1,115,889.15 as earlier mentioned was re-deposited by respondents under 28 new GTDs. Admittedly, MBC had P2,841,711.90 cash on hand more than double the outstanding balance of respondent's 71 GTDs at the start of the banking day on May 25, 1987. Since respondent Jose Abad was at MBC soon after it opened at 9:00 a.m. of that day, petitioner should not presume that MBC had no cash to cover the new GTDs of respondents and conclude that there was no consideration for said GTDs. Petitioner having failed to overcome the presumption that the ordinary course of business was followed,23 this Court finds that the 28 new GTDs were deposited "in the usual course of business" of MBC. In its second assignment of error, petitioner posits that the trial court erred in ordering it to pay the balance of the deposit insurance to respondents, maintaining that the instant petition stemmed from a petition for declaratory relief which does not essentially entail an executory process, and the only relief that should have been granted by the trial court is a declaration of the parties' rights and duties. As such, petitioner continues, no order of

payment may arise from the case as this is beyond the office of declaratory relief proceedings.24 Without doubt, a petition for declaratory relief does not essentially entail an executory process. There is nothing in its nature, however, that prohibits a counterclaim from being set-up in the same action.25 Now, there is nothing in the nature of a special civil action for declaratory relief that proscribes the filing of a counterclaim based on the same transaction, deed or contract subject of the complaint. A special civil action is after all not essentially different from an ordinary civil action, which is generally governed by Rules 1 to 56 of the Rules of Court, except that the former deals with a special subject matter which makes necessary some special regulation. But the identity between their fundamental nature is such that the same rules governing ordinary civil suits may and do apply to special civil actions if not inconsistent with or if they may serve to supplement the provisions of the peculiar rules governing special civil actions.26 Petitioner additionally submits that the issue of determining the amount of deposit insurance due respondents was never tried on the merits since the trial dwelt only on the "determination of the viability or validity of the deposits" and no evidence on record sustains the holding that the amount of deposit due respondents had been finally determined.27 This issue was not raised in the court a quo, however, hence, it cannot be raised for the first time in the petition at bar.28 Finally, petitioner faults respondents for availing of the statutory limits of the PDIC law, presupposing that, based on the conduct of respondent Jose Abad on March 25, 1987, he and his co respondents "somehow knew" of the impending closure of MBC. Petitioner ascribes bad faith to respondent Jose Abad in transacting the questioned deposits, and seeks to disqualify him from availing the benefits under the law. 29 Good faith is presumed. This, petitioner failed to overcome since it offered mere presumptions as evidence of bad faith.

B. Concept of Insured Deposits SECTION 4. Section 3 of the same Act is hereby re-numbered as Section 4 and subsection (g) thereof is further amended to read as follows: "(g) The term "insured deposit" means the amount due to any depositor for deposits in an insured bank net of any obligation of the depositor to the insured bank as of the date of closure, but not to exceed 500k. Such net amount shall be determined according to such regulations as the Board of Directors may prescribe. In determining such amount due to any depositor, there shall be added together all deposits in the bank maintained in the same right and capacity for his benefit either in his own name or in the name of others. A joint account regardless of whether the conjunction "and," "or," "and/or" is used, shall be insured separately from any individually-owned deposit account: Provided, That (1) If the account is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more juridical persons or entities, the maximum insured deposit shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are individuals, juridical persons or entities, unless a different sharing is stipulated in the document of deposit; and (2) If the account is held by a juridical person or entity jointly with one or more natural persons, the maximum insured deposit shall be presumed to belong entirely to such juridical person or entity: Provided, further, That the aggregate of the interests of each co-owner over several joint accounts, whether owned by the same or different combinations of individuals, juridical persons or entities, shall likewise be subject to the maximum insured deposit of Two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00): Provided, furthermore, That the provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, no owner/holder of any negotiable certificate of deposit shall be recognized as a depositor entitled to the rights provided in this Act unless his name is registered as owner/holder thereof in the books of the issuing bank." Insured deposits Covers only the amount due to any depositor for deposits in an insured bank, net of any obligation to the insured bank as of date of closure, but not to exceed 500k Trust funds and safety deposit boxes are not covered. - all three types of deposit (demand, savings, and time) are covered. I the depositor has all three types of accounts, he can only recover upto 500k, he is considered as one depositor - the net amount due to any depositor for deposits in an insured bank, after deducting offsets (unpaid loans and other obligations of the depositor to the closed bank). C. Liability to Depositors

A. Basic Policy SECTION 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended, is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to read as follows: "The Corporation shall, as a basic policy, promote and safeguard the interests of the depositing public by way of providing permanent and continuing insurance coverage on all insured deposits."

(1.) Deposit Liabilities required to be insured with PDIC

such person by the closed bank would have discharged it from liability for the insured deposit. "(c) Except as otherwise prescribed by the Board of Directors, neither the Corporation or such other insured bank shall be required to recognize as the owner of any portion of a deposit appearing on the records of the closed bank under a name other than that of the claimant, any person whose name or interest as such owner is not disclosed on the records of such closed bank as part owner of said deposit, if such recognition would increase the aggregate amount of the insured deposits in such closed bank. "(d) The Corporation may withhold payment of such portion of the insured deposit of any depositor in a closed bank as may be required to provide for the payment of any liability of such depositor as a stockholder of the closed bank, or of any liability of such depositor to the closed bank or its receiver, which is not offset against a claim due from such bank, pending the determination and payment of such liability by such depositor or any other liable therefor. "(e) Unless otherwise waived by the Corporation, if the depositor in the closed bank shall fail to claim his insured deposits with the Corporation within two (2) years from actual takeover of the closed bank by the receiver, or does not enforce his claim filed with the corporation within two (2) years after the two-year period to file a claim as mentioned hereinabove, all rights of the depositor against the Corporation with respect to the insured deposit shall be barred; however, all rights of the depositor against the closed bank and its shareholders or the receivership estate to which the Corporation may have become subrogated, shall thereupon revert to the depositor. Thereafter, the Corporation shall be discharged from any liability on the insured deposit." (6.) Calculation of Liability (a) Per Depositor, Per Capacity Rule 1. PDIC liability is on a per bank basis. Accounts in a bank, even though in several branches, are to be added together, provided that they are maintained in the same capacity and the same right for his benefit either in his own name or in the name of others. 2. The insurance premiums are to be paid by the insured bank, not the depositors. 3. In case the depositors account is more than the insurance coverage, the balance may still be recovered from the PDIC after the final liquidation of the remaining assets of the closed bank. 4. All three types of deposits (deposit, savings, and time) are covered. (b) Joint Accounts

(2.) Commencement of Liability Liability arrives: PDIC will 1.)issue a Notice then published once a week for 3 consecutive of general.. or bank located. 2.) Posting of schedule Thereafter, they will aggregate 3.)computation the liabilities of per depositors

(3.) Deposit Accounts Not Entitled to Payment Safety Deposit and Trust Account (4.) Extent of Liability If a bank is closed, every depositor is compulsorily insured for a maximum amount of 500k. Specific risk insured against: Bank closure only. Thus, losses due to a bank robbery are not covered. (5.) Determination of Insured Deposits SECTION 18. Section 11 of the same Act is hereby re-numbered as Section 16 and further amended by inserting a new paragraph as Section 16 (a), and the existing paragraphs are hereby re-numbered accordingly: "SEC. 16 (a) The Corporation shall commence the determination of insured deposits due the depositors of a closed bank upon its actual takeover of the closed bank. The Corporation shall give notice to the depositors of the closed bank of the insured deposits due them by whatever means deemed appropriate by the Board of Directors: Provided, That the Corporation shall publish the notice once a week for at least three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation or, when appropriate, in a newspaper circulated in the community or communities where the closed bank or its branches are located. "(b) Payment of an insured deposit to any person by the Corporation shall discharge the Corporation, and payment of a transferred deposit to any person by the new bank or by an insured bank in which a transferred deposit has been made available shall discharge the Corporation and such new bank or other insured bank, to the same extent that payment to

a.If the account is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more juridical persons or entities, the maximum insured deposit shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are individuals, juridical persons or entities, unless a different sharing is stipulated in the document of deposit. b. If the account is held by a juridical person or entity jointly with one or more natural persons, the maximum insured deposit shall be presumed to belong entirely to such juridical person or entity: Provided, further, That the aggregate of the interests of each co-owner over several joint accounts, whether owned by the same or different combinations of individuals, juridical persons or entities, shall likewise be subject to the maximum insured deposit of 500k c. A joint account, regardless of whether a conjuction and, or, and/or is used, shall be insured separately from any individually-owned deposit account. (c) Mode of Payment

(d) Effect of Payment of Insured Deposit SECTION 12. Section 9-B of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 12 and further amended to read as follows: "SEC 12. Before any distribution of the assets of the closed bank in accordance with the preferences established by law, the Corporation shall periodically charge against said assets reasonable receivership expenses and subject to approval by the proper court, reasonable liquidation expenses, it has incurred as part of the cost of receivership/liquidation proceedings and collect payment therefore from available assets. "After the payment of all liabilities and claims against the closed bank, the Corporation shall pay any surplus dividends at the legal rate of interest from 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." ?

SECTION 16. Section 10 (c) of the same Act is hereby renumbered as Section 14 and further amended to read as follows: "SEC. 14. Whenever an insured bank shall have been closed by the Monetary Board pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. 7653, payment of the insured deposits on such closed bank shall be made by the Corporation as soon as possible either (1) by cash or (2) by making available to each depositor a transferred deposit in another insured bank in an amount equal to insured deposit of such depositor: Provided, however, That the Corporation, in its discretion, may require proof of claims to be filed before paying the insured deposits, and that in any case where the Corporation is not satisfied as to the viability of a claim for an insured deposit, it may require final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction before paying such claim: Provided, further, That failure to settle the claim, within six (6) months from the date of filing of claim for insured deposit, where such failure was due to grave abuse of discretion, gross negligence, bad faith, or malice, shall, upon conviction, subject the directors, officers or employees of the Corporation responsible for the delay, to imprisonment from six (6) months to one (1) year: Provided, furthermore, That the period shall not apply if the validity of the claim requires the resolution of issues of facts and or law by another office, body or agency including the case mentioned in the first proviso or by Corporation together with such other office, body or agency." Manner of payment: a. Cash b. Transferred deposit A deposit in an insured bank made available to a depositor by the PDIC as payment of the insured deposit of such depositor in a closed bank and assumed by another insured bank.

7.

Effect of payment by the PDIC to the depositor of his insured deposit:

a. Discharges the PDIC from further liability b. Subrogates the PDIC to all the rights of the depositor against the closed bank to the extent of such payment. The fact that the certificates state that the certificates are insured by PDIC does not ipso facto make the latter liable for the same should the contingency insured against arise. As stated earlier, the deposit liability of PDIC is determined by the provisions of R.A. No. 3519, and statements in the certificates that the same are insured by PDIC are not binding upon the latter. x x x The mere fact that a certificate recites on its face that a certain sum has been deposited, or that officers of the bank may have stated that the deposit is protected by the guaranty law, does not make the guaranty fund liable for payment, if in fact a deposit has not been made xxx. The banks have nothing to do with the guaranty fund as such. It is a fund raised by assessments against all state banks, administered by officers of the state to protect deposits in banks. x x x We come now to petitioners second assigned error. In order that a claim for deposit insurance with the PDIC may prosper, the law requires that a corresponding deposit be placed in the insured bank. This is implicit from a reading of the following provisions of R.A. 3519:

SECTION 1. There is hereby created a Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation. xxx which shall insure, as provided, the deposits of all banks which are entitled to the benefits of insurance under this Act xxx. (Italics supplied). SEC. 10 ( c) Whenever an insured bank shall have been closed on account of insolvency, payment of the insured deposits in such bank shall be made by the Corporation as soon as possible xxx. (Italics supplied.) A deposit as defined in Section 3(f) of R.A. No. 3591, may be constituted only if money or the equivalent of money is received by a bank: SEC. 3. As used in this Act-(f) The term deposit means the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received by a bank in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obliged to give credit to a commercial, checking, savings, time or thrift account or which is evidence by passbook, check and/or certificate of deposit printed or issued in accordance with Central Bank rules and regulations and other applicable laws, together with such other obligations of a bank which, consistent with banking usage and practices, the Board of Directors shall determine and prescribe by regulations to be deposit liabilities of the Bank xxx. (Italics ours.) (e) Payments of Insured Deposits as Preferred Credit under Art. 2244 Civil Code Art. 2244. With reference to other property, real and personal, of the debtor, the following claims or credits shall be preferred in the order named: (1) Proper funeral expenses for the debtor, or children under his or her parental authority who have no property of their own, when approved by the court; (2) Credits for services rendered the insolvent by employees, laborers, or household helpers for one year preceding the commencement of the proceedings in insolvency; (3) Expenses during the last illness of the debtor or of his or her spouse and children under his or her parental authority, if they have no property of their own; (4) Compensation due the laborers or their dependents under laws providing for indemnity for damages in cases of labor accident, or illness resulting from the nature of the employment; (5) Credits and advancements made to the debtor for support of himself or herself, and family, during the last year preceding the insolvency; (6) Support during the insolvency proceedings, and for three months thereafter;

(7) Fines and civil indemnification arising from a criminal offense; (8) Legal expenses, and expenses incurred in the administration of the insolvent's estate for the common interest of the creditors, when properly authorized and approved by the court; (9) Taxes and assessments due the national government, other than those mentioned in Articles 2241, No. 1, and 2242, No. 1; (10) Taxes and assessments due any province, other than those referred to in Articles 2241, No. 1, and 2242, No. 1; (11) Taxes and assessments due any city or municipality, other than those indicated in Articles 2241, No. 1, and 2242, No. 1; (12) Damages for death or personal injuries caused by a quasi-delict; (13) Gifts due to public and private institutions of charity or beneficence; (14) Credits which, without special privilege, appear in (a) a public instrument; or (b) in a final judgment, if they have been the subject of litigation. These credits shall have preference among themselves in the order of priority of the dates of the instruments and of the judgments, respectively. (1924a)

(f) Failure to Settle Claim of Insured Depositor failure to settle the claim, within six (6) months from the date of filing of claim for insured deposit, where such failure was due to grave abuse of discretion, gross negligence, bad faith, or malice, shall, upon conviction, subject the directors, officers or employees of the Corporation responsible for the delay, to imprisonment from six (6) months to one (1) year: Provided, furthermore, That the period shall not apply if the validity of the claim requires the resolution of issues of facts and or law by another office, body or agency including the case mentioned in the first proviso or by Corporation together with such other office, body or agency." (g) Failure of Depositor to Claim Insured Deposits if the depositor in the closed bank shall fail to claim his insured deposits with the Corporation within two (2) years from actual takeover of the closed bank by the receiver, or does not enforce his claim filed with the corporation within two (2) years after the twoyear period to file a claim as mentioned hereinabove, all rights of the depositor against the Corporation with respect to the insured deposit shall be barred; however, all rights of the

depositor against the closed bank and its shareholders or the receivership estate to which the Corporation may have become subrogated, shall thereupon revert to the depositor. Thereafter, the Corporation shall be discharged from any liability on the insured deposit." When should the depositor claim- if that period lapse, you cannot cliam the amount anymore. Be done within 2 years of actual takeover of the bank. If you dont enforce your claim. Itll be barred. Barred- right to claim would be reverted. File again when liquidation has finished if there is still left.

"SEC. 22. No court, except the Court of Appeals, shall issue any temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the Corporation for any action under this Act. "This prohibition shall apply in all cases, disputes or controversies instituted by a private party, the insured bank, or any shareholder of the insured bank. "The Supreme Court may issue a restraining order or injunction when the matter is of extreme urgency involving a constitutional issue, such that unless a temporary restraining order is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise. The party applying for the issuance of a restraining order or injunction shall file a bond in an amount to be fixed by the Supreme Court, which bond shall accrue in favor of the Corporation if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. "Any restraining order or injunction issued in violation of this Section is void and of no force and effect and any judge who has issued the same shall suffer the penalty of suspension of at least sixty (60) days without pay."

i. Examination of Banks and Deposit Accounts SECTION 8. Section 8, paragraph Eighth of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "Eighth - To conduct examination of banks with prior approval of the Monetary Board: Provided, That no examination can be conducted within twelve (12) months from the last examination date: Provided, further, That, to avoid overlapping of efforts, the examination shall maximize the efficient use of relevant reports, information and findings of the Bangko Sentral which it shall make available to the Corporation: Provided, finally, That the Board of Directors shall, in close coordination with the Monetary Board, prescribe such guidelines as may be necessary to ensure that there are no duplications of functions."

ii. Prohibition Against Splitting of Deposits "Splitting of deposits occurs whenever a deposit account with an outstanding balance of more than the statutory maximum amount of insured deposit maintained under the name of natural or juridical persons is broken down and transferred into two or more accounts in the name/s of natural or juridical persons or entities who have no beneficial ownership on transferred deposits in their names within thirty (30) days immediately preceding or during a bank-declared bank holiday, or immediately preceding a closure order issued by the Monetary Board of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas for the purpose of availing of the maximum deposit insurance coverage;

iii. Prohibition Against Issuances of TROs, et. SECTION 24. A new Section 22 is hereby inserted, to read as follows: