G.R. No. 176959. September 8, 2010.

*
METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY, INC. (as
successor-in-interest of the banking operations of Global
Business Bank, Inc. formerly known as PHILIPPINE
BANKING CORPORATION), petitioner, vs. THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF RIVERSIDE MILLS CORPORATION
PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND, represented by
ERNESTO TANCHI, JR., CESAR SALIGUMBA,
AMELITA SIMON, EVELINA OCAMPO and CARLITOS
Y. LIM, RMC UNPAID EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,
INC., and THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES OF THE
PROVIDENT AND RETIREMENT FUND OF RMC,
respondents.

Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Just Causes;

Authorized Causes; Under the Labor Code, as amended, an
employee may be dismissed for just or authorized causes. A
dismissal for just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as
amended, implies that the employee is guilty of some misfeasance
towards his employer. Essentially, it is an act of the employee that
sets off the dismissal process in motion.The provision makes
reference to a member-employee who is dismissed for cause.
Under the Labor Code, as amended, an employee may be
dismissed for just or authorized causes. A dismissal for just cause
under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, implies that the
employee is guilty of some misfeasance towards his employer, i.e.
the employee has committed serious misconduct in relation to his
work, is guilty of fraud, has perpetrated an offense against the
employer or any immediate member of his family, or has grossly
and habitually neglected his duties. Essentially, it is an act of the
employee that sets off the dismissal process in motion.
Same; Same; Same; Same; A dismissal for an authorized
cause under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as amended,
termination of employment is occasioned by the employers exercise
of management prerogative or by the illness of the employee
matters beyond the workers control.On the other hand, a
dismissal for an authorized cause under Articles 283 and 284 of
the Labor Code, as

_______________

*THIRD DIVISION.

351
 VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 351

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of Trustees

of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and Retirement Fund

amended, does not entail any wrongdoing on the part of the

employee. Rather, the termination of employment is occasioned by
the employers exercise of management prerogative or by the
illness of the employeematters beyond the workers control.
Same; Same; Same; Same; The distinction between just and
authorized causes for dismissal lies in the fact that payment of
separation pay is required in dismissals for an authorized cause
but not so in dismissals for just cause.The distinction between
just and authorized causes for dismissal lies in the fact that
payment of separation pay is required in dismissals for an
authorized cause but not so in dismissals for just cause. The
rationale behind this rule was explained in the case of Phil. Long
Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC (164 SCRA 671 [1988]) and
reiterated in San Miguel Corporation v. Lao (384 SCRA 504
[2002]), thus: We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be
allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances
where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual
intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or
illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not
be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or
financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
ground of social justice.
Corporation Law; Insolvency; Under Section 122 of the
Corporation Code, a dissolved corporation shall nevertheless
continue as a body corporate for three (3) years for the purpose of
prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and enabling it to
settle and close its affairs, to dispose and convey its property and
to distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the
business for which it was established.Under Section 122 of the
Corporation Code, a dissolved corporation shall nevertheless
continue as a body corporate for three (3) years for the purpose of
prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and enabling it to
settle and close its affairs, to dispose and convey its property and
to distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing the
business for which it was established. Within those three (3)
years, the corporation may appoint a trustee or receiver who shall
carry out the said purposes beyond the three (3)-year winding-up
period. Thus, a trustee of a dissolved corporation may commence a
suit which can proceed to final judgment even beyond the three
(3)-year period of liquidation.

352

352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of Trustees
of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and Retirement Fund

Attorneys Fees; Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code allows the

award of attorneys fees in cases where the defendants act or
omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons
or to incur expenses to protect his interest.Anent the award of
attorneys fees to respondents, we find the same to be in order.
Article 2208(2) of the Civil Code allows the award of attorneys
fees in cases where the defendants act or omission has compelled
the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to
protect his interest. Attorneys fees may be awarded by a court to
one (1) who was compelled to litigate with third persons or to
incur expenses to protect his or her interest by reason of an
unjustified act or omission of the party from whom it is sought.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
Sedigo & Associates for petitioner.
Nathaniel F. Sauz for respondents RMC Unpaid
Employees Association, Inc. and the Beneficiaries of
Provident Fund.
Tan & Venturanza Law Offices for Ernesto Tanchi, Jr.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, prays for
the reversal of the Decision1 dated November 7, 2006 and
Resolution2 dated March 5, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 76642. The CA had affirmed the
Decision3 dated June 27, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 137, Makati City in Civil Case No. 97-997
which declared invalid

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 38-45. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-

Bernabe and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Dacudao and
Rosmari D. Carandang.
2Id., at p. 63.
3Id., at pp. 89-98.

353

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 353

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund
the reversion or application of the Riverside Mills
Corporation Provident and Retirement Fund (RMCPRF) to
the outstanding obligation of Riverside Mills Corporation
(RMC) with Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbank).
The facts are as follows:
On November 1, 1973, RMC established a Provident and
Retirement Plan4 (Plan) for its regular employees. Under
the Plan, RMC and its employees shall each contribute 2%
of the employees current basic monthly salary, with RMCs
contribution to increase by 1% every five (5) years up to a
maximum of 5%. The contributions shall form part of the
provident fund (the Fund) which shall be held, invested
and distributed by the Commercial Bank and Trust
Company. Paragraph 13 of the Plan likewise provided that
the Plan may be amended or terminated by the Company
at any time on account of business conditions, but no such
action shall operate to permit any part of the assets of the
Fund to be used for, or diverted to purposes other than for
the exclusive benefit of the members of the Plan and their
beneficiaries. In no event shall any part of the assets of
the Fund revert to [RMC] before all liabilities of the Plan
have been satisfied.5
On October 15, 1979, the Board of Trustees of RMCPRF
(the Board) entered into an Investment Management
Agreement6 (Agreement) with Philbank (now, petitioner
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company). Pursuant to the
Agreement, petitioner shall act as an agent of the Board
and shall hold, manage, invest and reinvest the Fund in
Trust Account No. 1797 in its behalf. The Agreement shall
be in force for one (1) year and shall be deemed
automatically renewed unless sooner terminated either by
petitioner bank or by the Board.
In 1984, RMC ceased business operations. Nonetheless,
petitioner continued to render investment services to
respon-

_______________

4Records, Vol. 2, pp. 409-411.

5Id.
6Id., at pp. 295-301.

354

354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

dent Board. In a letter7 dated September 27, 1995,

petitioner informed respondent Board that Philbanks
Board of Directors had decided to apply the remaining
trust assets held by it in the name of RMCPRF against
part of the outstanding obligations of RMC.
Subsequently, respondent RMC Unpaid Employees
Association, Inc. (Association), representing the terminated
employees of RMC, learned of Trust Account No. 1797.
Through counsel, they demanded payment of their share in
a letter8 dated February 4, 1997. When such demand went
unheeded, the Association, along with the individual
members of RMCPRF, filed a complaint for accounting
against the Board and its officers, namely, Ernesto Tanchi,
Jr., Carlitos Y. Lim, Amelita G. Simon, Evelina S. Ocampo
and Cesar Saligumba, as well as petitioner bank. The case
was docketed as Civil Case No. 97-997 in the RTC of
Makati City, Branch 137.
On June 2, 1998, during the trial, the Board passed a
Resolution9 in court declaring that the Fund belongs
exclusively to the employees of RMC. It authorized
petitioner to release the proceeds of Trust Account No.
1797 through the Board, as the court may direct.
Consequently, plaintiffs amended their complaint to
include the Board as co-plaintiffs.
On June 27, 2002, the RTC rendered a decision in favor
of respondents. The trial court declared invalid the
reversion and application of the proceeds of the Fund to the
outstanding obligation of RMC to petitioner bank. The fallo
of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring INVALID the reversion or application of the Riverside
Mills Corporation Provident and Retirement Fund as payment for the
outstanding obligation of River-

_______________

7Id., at p. 316.
8Id., at pp. 427-428.
9Records, Vol. I, p. 241.

355

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 355

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

side Mills Corporation with defendant Philippine Banking

Corporation.
2. Defendant Philippine Banking Corporation (now [Global Bank]) is
hereby ordered to:
a. Reverse the application of the Riverside Mills Corporation
Provident and Retirement Fund as payment for the outstanding
 obligation of Riverside Mills Corporation with defendant
Philippine Banking Corporation;
b. Render a complete accounting of the Riverside Mills Corporation
Provident and Retirement Fund; the Fund will then be subject to
disposition by plaintiff Board of Trustees in accordance with law
and the Provident Retirement Plan;
c. Pay attorneys fees equivalent to 10% of the total amounts due to
plaintiffs Riverside Mills Unpaid Employees Association and the
individual beneficiaries of the Riverside Mills Corporation
Provident and Retirement Fund; and costs of suit.
3. The Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and Retirement Fund is
ordered to determine the beneficiaries of the FUND entitled to
benefits, the amount of benefits per beneficiary, and pay such benefits
to the individual beneficiaries.
SO ORDERED.10

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial court. It held that

the Fund is distinct from RMCs account in petitioner bank
and may not be used except for the benefit of the members
of RMCPRF. Citing Paragraph 13 of the Plan, the appellate
court stressed that the assets of the Fund shall not revert
to the Company until after the liabilities of the Plan had
been satisfied. Further, the Agreement was specific that
upon the termination of the Agreement, petitioner shall
deliver the Fund to the Board or its successor, and not to
RMC as trustor.

_______________

10Rollo, pp. 97-98.

356

356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

The CA likewise sustained the award of attorneys fees to

respondents.11
Hence, this petition.
Before us, petitioner makes the following assignment of
errors:

I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
RULING THAT THE REVERSION AND APPLICATION
BY PHILBANK OF THE FUND IN PAYMENT OF THE
LOAN OBLIGATIONS OF RIVERSIDE MILLS
CORPORATION WERE INVALID.12
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DECLARING THAT BY
HAVING ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
BOARD, (PHILBANK) IS NOW ESTOPPED TO
QUESTION THE LATTERS AUTHORITY AS WELL AS
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF.13
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES TO
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES ON THE BASIS THAT
[PHILBANK] WAS REMISS IN ITS DUTY TO TREAT
RMCPRFS ACCOUNT WITH THE HIGHEST DEGREE
OF CARE CONSIDERING THE FIDUCIARY NATURE
OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP, PERFORCE, THE
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES WERE COMPELLED TO
LITIGATE TO PROTECT THEIR RIGHT.14

The fundamental issue for our determination is whether

the proceeds of the RMCPRF may be applied to satisfy
RMCs debt to Philbank.

_______________

11Id., at pp. 43-44.

12Id., at p. 22.
13Id., at p. 26.
14Id., at p. 28.

357

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 357

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

Petitioner contends that RMCs closure in 1984 rendered

the RMCPRF Board of Trustees functus officio and devoid
of authority to act on behalf of RMCPRF. It thus belittles
the RMCPRF Board Resolution dated June 2, 1998,
authorizing the release of the Fund to several of its
supposed beneficiaries. Without known claimants of the
Fund for eleven (11) years since RMC closed shop, it was
justifiable for petitioner to consider the Fund to have
technically reverted to, and formed part of RMCs assets.
Hence, it could be applied to satisfy RMCs debts to
Philbank. Petitioner also disputes the award of attorneys
fees in light of the efforts taken by Philbank to ascertain
claims before effecting the reversion.
Respondents for their part, belie the claim that
petitioner exerted earnest efforts to ascertain claims.
Respondents cite petitioners omission to publish a notice in
newspapers of general circulation to locate claims against
the Fund. To them, petitioners act of addressing the letter
dated September 27, 1995 to the Board is a recognition of
its authority to act for the beneficiaries. For these reasons,
respondents believe that the reversion of the Fund to RMC
is not only unwarranted but unconscionable. For being
compelled to litigate to protect their rights, respondents
also defend the award of attorneys fees to be proper.
The petition has no merit.
A trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to
property which involves the existence of equitable duties
imposed upon the holder of the title to the property to deal
with it for the benefit of another. A trust is either express
or implied. Express trusts are those which the direct and
positive acts of the parties create, by some writing or deed,
or will, or by words evincing an intention to create a
trust.15
Here, the RMC Provident and Retirement Plan created
an express trust to provide retirement benefits to the
regular

_______________

15Development Bank of the Philippines v. Commission on Audit, G.R.

No. 144516, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 459, 472.

358

358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

employees of RMC. RMC retained legal title to the Fund

but held the same in trust for the employees-beneficiaries.
Thus, the allocation under the Plan is directly credited to
each members account:

6. Allocation:
a. Monthly Contributions:
1. Employee to be credited to his account.
2. Employer to be credited to the respective
members account as stated
under the contribution provision.
b. Investment Earnings semestral valuation of the fund
shall be made and any earnings or losses shall be credited
or debited, as the case may be, to each members
account in proportion to his account balances based on the
last proceeding (sic) [preceding] accounting period.
c. Forfeitures shall be retained in the fund.16(Emphasis
supplied.)
 The trust was likewise a revocable trust as RMC
reserved the power to terminate the Plan after all the
liabilities of the Fund to the employees under the trust had
been paid. Paragraph 13 of the Plan provided that [i]n no
event shall any part of the assets of the Fund revert to the
Company before all liabilities of the Plan have been
satisfied.
Relying on this clause, petitioner, as the Fund trustee,
considered the Fund to have technically reverted to RMC,
allegedly after no further claims were made thereon since
November 1984. Thereafter, it applied the proceeds of the
Fund to RMCs debt with the bank pursuant to Paragraph
9 of Promissory Note No. 1618-8017 which RMC executed
on May 12, 1981. The pertinent provision of the promissory
note reads:

_______________

16Records, Vol. 2, p. 409.

17Id., at p. 512.

359

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 359

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

IN THE EVENT THAT THIS NOTE IS NOT PAID AT

MATURITY OR WHEN THE SAME BECOMES DUE UNDER
ANY OF THE PROVISIONS HEREOF, I/WE HEREBY
AUTHORIZE THE BANK AT ITS OPTION AND WITHOUT
NOTICE, TO APPLY TO THE PAYMENT OF THIS NOTE, ANY
AND ALL MONEYS, SECURITIES AND THINGS OF VALUE
WHICH MAY BE IN ITS HAND OR ON DEPOSIT OR
OTHERWISE BELONGING TO ME/US AND, FOR THIS
PURPOSE, I/WE HEREBY, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY,
IRREVOCABLY CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT THE SAID
BANK TO BE MY/OUR TRUE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT WITH
FULL POWER AND AUTHORITY FOR ME/US AND IN
MY/OUR NAME AND BEHALF, AND WITHOUT PRIOR
NOTICE, TO NEGOTIATE, SELL AND TRANSFER ANY
MONEYS, SECURITIES AND THINGS OF VALUE WHICH IT
MAY HOLD, BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE SALE, AND APPLY
THE PROCEEDS THEREOF TO THE PAYMENT OF THIS
NOTE. (Emphasis supplied.)

Petitioner contends that it was justified in supposing

that reversion had occurred because its efforts to locate
claims against the Fund from the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC), the lower courts, the CA and the
Supreme Court proved futile.
We are not convinced.
Employees trusts or benefit plans are intended to
provide economic assistance to employees upon the
occurrence of certain contingencies, particularly, old age
retirement, death, sickness, or disability. They give
security against certain hazards to which members of the
Plan may be exposed. They are independent and additional
sources of protection for the working group and established
for their exclusive benefit and for no other purpose.18 Here,
while the Plan provides for a reversion of the Fund to
RMC, this cannot be done until all the liabilities of the Plan
have been paid. And when RMC ceased operations in 1984,
the Fund became liable for the

_______________

18 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

95022, March 23, 1992, 207 SCRA 487, 495.

360

360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

payment not only of the benefits of qualified retirees at the

time of RMCs closure but also of those who were separated
from work as a consequence of the closure. Paragraph 7 of
the Retirement Plan states:

Separation from Service:

A member who is separated from the service of the Company
before satisfying the conditions for retirement due to resignation
or any reason other than dismissal for cause shall be paid
the balance of his account as of the last day of the month
prior to separation. The amount representing the Companys
contribution and income thereon standing to the credit of the
separating member shall be paid to him as follows:

Completed Years % of Companys Contribution

of Membership and Earnings Thereon Payable
0-5 NIL
6-10 20%
11-15 40%
16-20 60%
21-25 80%
25-over 100%

A member who is separated for cause shall not be entitled to

withdraw the total amount representing his contribution and that
of the Company including the earned interest thereon, and the
employers contribution shall be retained in the fund.19
(Emphasis supplied.)

The provision makes reference to a member-employee

who is dismissed for cause. Under the Labor Code, as
amended, an employee may be dismissed for just or
authorized causes. A dismissal for just cause under Article
28220 of the Labor Code,

19Records, Vol. 2, pp. 409-410.

20 ART. 282. TERMINATION BY EMPLOYER.An employer may
terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the
lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his
work;

361

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 361

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

as amended, implies that the employee is guilty of some

misfeasance towards his employer, i.e. the employee has
committed serious misconduct in relation to his work, is
guilty of fraud, has perpetrated an offense against the
employer or any immediate member of his family, or has
grossly and habitually neglected his duties. Essentially, it
is an act of the employee that sets off the dismissal process
in motion.
On the other hand, a dismissal for an authorized cause
under Article 28321 and 28422 of the Labor Code, as
amended,

_______________

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him
by his employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the
person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representative; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
21ART. 283. CLOSURE OF ESTABLISHMENT AND REDUCTION
OF PERSONNEL.The employer may also terminate the employment of
any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy,
retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of
the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of
circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on
the worker and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1)
month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the
installation of labor saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected
thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one
(1) month pay or at least (1) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases
of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not
due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay
shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six
(6) months shall be considered as one (1) whole year.
22 ART. 284. DISEASE AS GROUND FOR TERMINATION.An
employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found
to be suffering from any disease and whose continued

362

362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

does not entail any wrongdoing on the part of the

employee. Rather, the termination of employment is
occasioned by the employers exercise of management
prerogative or by the illness of the employeematters
beyond the workers control. The distinction between just
and authorized causes for dismissal lies in the fact that
payment of separation pay is required in dismissals for an
authorized cause but not so in dismissals for just cause.
The rationale behind this rule was explained in the case of
Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC23 and
reiterated in San Miguel Corporation v. Lao,24 thus:

We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a

measure of social justice only in those instances where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the
reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual
intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or
illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not
be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or
financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
ground of social justice.
xxx xxx xxx
The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance
wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged.
At best[,] it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not
condone the offense.
 In San Miguel Corporation v. Lao, we reversed the CA
ruling which granted retirement benefits to an employee
who

_______________

employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as

to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay
equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month
salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least
six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
23No. L-80609, August 23, 1988, 164 SCRA 671, 682.
24G.R. Nos. 143136-37, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 504, 511.

363

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 363

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

was found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to have been
properly dismissed for willful breach of trust and
confidence.
Applied to this case, the penal nature of the provision in
Paragraph 7 of the Plan, whereby a member separated for
cause shall not be entitled to withdraw the contributions
made by him and his employer, indicates that the
separation for cause being referred to therein is any of
the just causes under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as
amended.
To be sure, the cessation of business by RMC is an
authorized cause for the termination of its employees.
Hence, not only those qualified for retirement should
receive their total benefits under the Fund, but those laid
off should also be entitled to collect the balance of their
account as of the last day of the month prior to RMCs
closure. In addition, the Plan provides that the separating
member shall be paid a maximum of 40% of the amount
representing the Companys contribution and its income
standing to his credit. Until these liabilities shall have
been settled, there can be no reversion of the Fund to RMC.
Under Paragraph 625 of the Agreement, petitioners
function shall be limited to the liquidation and return of
the Fund to the Board upon the termination of the
Agreement. Paragraph 14 of said Agreement further states
that it shall be the duty of the Investment Manager to
assign, transfer, and pay over to its successor or successors
all cash, securities, and other properties held by it
constituting the fund less any amounts constituting the
charges and expenses which are authorized [under the
Agreement] to be payable from the

_______________

25 The power, duties and discretion conferred upon the Investment

Manager by virtue of this Agreement shall continue for purposes of
liquidation and return of the Fund only, after the notice of
termination of this Agreement has been served in writing until final
delivery of the Fund to the Board of Trustees or its successors-in-
interest or assigns. (Emphasis supplied.) Records, Vol. 2, p. 297.

364

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

Fund.26 Clearly, petitioner had no power to effect

reversion of the Fund to RMC.
The reversion petitioner effected also could hardly be
said to have been done in good faith and with due regard to
the rights of the employee-beneficiaries. The restriction
imposed under Paragraph 13 of the Plan stating that in no
event shall any part of the assets of the Fund revert to the
Company before all liabilities of the Plan have been
satisfied, demands more than a passive stance as that
adopted by petitioner in locating claims against the Fund.
Besides, the beneficiaries of the Fund are readily
identifiablethe regular or permanent employees of RMC
who were qualified retirees and those who were terminated
as a result of its closure. Petitioner needed only to secure a
list of the employees concerned from the Board of Trustees
which was its principal under the Agreement and the
trustee of the Plan or from RMC which was the trustor of
the Fund under the Retirement Plan. Yet, petitioner
notified respondent Board of Trustees only after Philbanks
Board of Directors had decided to apply the remaining
trust assets of RMCPRF to the liabilities of the company.
Petitioner nonetheless assails the authority of the Board
of Trustees to issue the Resolution of June 2, 1998
recognizing the exclusive ownership of the Fund by the
employees of RMC and authorizing its release to the
beneficiaries as may be ordered by the trial court.
Petitioner contends that the cessation of RMCs operations
ended not only the Board members employment in RMC,
but also their tenure as members of the RMCPRF Board of
Trustees.
Again, we are not convinced. Paragraph 13 of the Plan
states that [a]lthough it is expected that the Plan will
continue indefinitely, it may be amended or terminated by
the Company at any time on account of business
conditions. There is no dispute as to the management
prerogative on this matter, considering that the Fund
consists primarily of con-

_______________

26Records, Vol. 2, p. 299.

365

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 365

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

tributions from the salaries of members-employees and the

Company. However, it must be stressed that the RMC
Provident and Retirement Plan was primarily established
for the benefit of regular and permanent employees of
RMC. As such, the Board may not unilaterally terminate
the Plan without due regard to any accrued benefits and
rightful claims of members-employees. Besides, the Board
is bound by Paragraph 13 prohibiting the reversion of the
Fund to RMC before all the liabilities of the Plan have been
satisfied.
As to the contention that the functions of the Board of
Trustees ceased upon with RMCs closure, the same is
likewise untenable.
Under Section 12227 of the Corporation Code, a dissolved
corporation shall nevertheless continue as a body corporate

_______________

27 SEC. 122. Corporate liquidation.Every corporation whose

charter expires by its own limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or
otherwise, or whose corporate existence for other purposes is terminated
in any other manner, shall nevertheless be continued as a body corporate
for three (3) years after the time when it would have been so dissolved, for
the purpose of prosecuting and defending suits by or against it and
enabling it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and convey its
property and to distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of continuing
the business for which it was established.
At any time during said three (3) years, said corporation is authorized
and empowered to convey all of its property to trustees for the benefit of
stockholders, members, creditors, and other persons in interest. From and
after any such conveyance by the corporation of its property in trust for
the benefit of its stockholders, members, creditors and others in interest,
all interests which the corporation had in the property terminates, the
legal interest vests in the trustees, and the beneficial interest in the
stockholders, members, creditors or other persons in interest.
Upon winding up of the corporate affairs, any asset distributable to any
creditor or stockholder or member who is unknown or cannot be found
shall be escheated to the city or municipality where such assets are
located.

366

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

for three (3) years for the purpose of prosecuting and

defending suits by or against it and enabling it to settle
and close its affairs, to dispose and convey its property and
to distribute its assets, but not for the purpose of
continuing the business for which it was established.
Within those three (3) years, the corporation may appoint a
trustee or receiver who shall carry out the said purposes
beyond the three (3)-year winding-up period. Thus, a
trustee of a dissolved corporation may commence a suit
which can proceed to final judgment even beyond the three
(3)-year period of liquidation.28
In the same manner, during and beyond the three (3)-
year winding-up period of RMC, the Board of Trustees of
RMCPRF may do no more than settle and close the affairs
of the Fund. The Board retains its authority to act on
behalf of its members, albeit, in a limited capacity. It may
commence suits on behalf of its members but not continue
managing the Fund for purposes of maximizing profits.
Here, the Boards act of issuing the Resolution authorizing
petitioner to release the Fund to its beneficiaries is still
part of the liquidation process, that is, satisfaction of the
liabilities of the Plan, and does not amount to doing
business. Hence, it was properly within the Boards power
to promulgate.
Anent the award of attorneys fees to respondents, we
find the same to be in order. Article 2208(2) of the Civil
Code allows the award of attorneys fees in cases where the
defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to
litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect
his interest. Attorneys fees may be awarded by a court to
one (1) who was compelled to litigate with third persons or
to incur expenses

_______________

Except by decrease of capital stock and as otherwise allowed by this

Code, no corporation shall distribute any of its assets or property except
upon lawful dissolution and after payment of all its debts and liabilities.
28Knecht v. United Cigarette Corp., G.R. No. 139370, July 4, 2002, 384
SCRA 45, 57, citing Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102965,
January 21, 1999, 301 SCRA 342, 353.

367

VOL. 630, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 367

Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, Inc. vs. Board of
Trustees of Riverside Mills Corporation Provident and
Retirement Fund

to protect his or her interest by reason of an unjustified act

or omission of the party from whom it is sought.29
Here, petitioner applied the Fund in satisfaction of the
obligation of RMC without authority and without bothering
to inquire regarding unpaid claims from the Board of
Trustees of RMCPRF. It wrote the members of the Board
only after it had decided to revert the Fund to RMC. Upon
being met with objections, petitioner insisted on the
reversion of the Fund to RMC, despite the clause in the
Plan that prohibits such reversion before all liabilities shall
have been satisfied, thereby leaving respondents with no
choice but to seek judicial relief.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is
hereby DENIED. The Decision dated November 7, 2006
and the Resolution dated March 5, 2007 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 76642 are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Bersamin, Del Castillo**

and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Note.Dissolution or even the expiration of the three-

year liquidation period should not be a bar to a
corporations enforcement of its rights as a corporation.
(Paramount Insurance Corporation vs. A.C. Ordoez
Corporation, 561 SCRA 327 [2008])
o0o

_______________

29Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 160379, August 14, 2009, 596
SCRA 57, 76.
** Designated additional member per Special Order No. 879 dated
August 13, 2010.
 Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.