The Long Wait for Justice: AMA Bank Depositors Call on BSP for Immediate Action

For more than five years, depositors of AMA Rural Bank of Mandaluyong, Inc. ("AMA Bank") have been left in the dark, unable to access their hard-earned money.  Many of them, particularly senior citizens, have worked tirelessly to secure justice, hoping for a resolution that will allow them to reclaim their deposits.  Their dissatisfaction has grown with each passing year, as legal and bureaucratic complications continue to delay the bank's reopening.  Tragically, some of these depositors died without seeing the resolution they had fought so hard for.

On March 1, 2023, the First Division of the Supreme Court ("SC First Division") issued an even-dated Resolution ("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 the BSP to reopen AMA Rural Bank within five days and the PDIC to return seized funds and assets within the same time frame.

The Supreme Court En Banc then denied the BSP and PDIC's Motions for Reconsideration "with finality" in its Resolution dated May 28, 2024 ("Second SC Resolution").  The Supreme Court En Banc then issued an Entry of Judgment, confirming the First and Second SC Resolutions, which affirmed the CA Decision in CA-G.R.  SP No. 163288 has become final and executory on May 28, 2024.  

Following this decision, on March 5, 2025, a group of AMA Bank depositors returned to the BSP to voice their concerns. This visit comes after previous efforts, including a formal letter to BSP officials and a prior meeting, both of which sought clarification on the fate of their deposits. While the BSP has repeatedly stated that it does not oppose the reopening of AMA Bank, its actions suggest otherwise.

The root of the problem is the BSP's second Motion for Reconsideration (M.R.) filed with the Supreme Court, which strongly opposes the reopening of AMA Bank.  This contradiction has only heightened depositors' concerns.  If the BSP truly supports the reopening, why persist in legal maneuvers that prevent it? The depositors were informed about the second M.R.  remains under Supreme Court consideration, exacerbating the uncertainty surrounding their funds.

To make matters worse, AMA Bank has been denied access to nearly 2 billion pesos in legitimate funds held by PDIC, the Department of Education ("DepEd"), and the BSP itself.  Without these funds, even if AMA Bank were to reopen, it would struggle to function effectively.  The depositors are concerned that forcing a reopening without financial backing, while the BSP's second M.R. remaining pending would only expose AMA Bank to contempt of court, exacerbating the situation.

The prolonged suffering of AMA Bank depositors began on November 7, 2019, when the BSP issued Monetary Board ("MB") Resolution No. 1705.D ("MB Resolution No. 1705.D"), which ordered the closure and liquidation of AMA Bank, designated PDIC as the receiver of AMA Bank, and directed PDIC to proceed with the takeover and liquidation of AMA Bank.

On November 8, 2019, following the service of the Notice of Closure, PDIC implemented MB Resolution No. 1705.D and took over operations at AMA Bank's Head Office in Mandaluyong City, as well as nine (9) branches and three (3) Other Banking Offices (OBO) in various locations throughout the country, and took custody of all its records, documents, and assets, including cash assets.

However, in its Decision dated September 7, 2020 ("CA Decision"), the Court of Appeals granted, among other things, AMA Bank's CA Petition, by annulling and setting aside MB Resolution No. 1705.D and all acts done in pursuance thereof, and directing PDIC to (i) return all records, documents, and assets seized from AMA BANK, and (ii) nullify the orders issued in implementation of MB Resolution 1705.D.

In this CA Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled that the closure was illegal and ordered the BSP and PDIC to reopen the bank and return the seized assets. Despite this ruling, the bank has been closed for more than four years now.

During the BSP-AMA Bank meeting on March 5, 2025, BSP Deputy Governor Atty. Elmore Capule explained the BSP's side of the story.  However, rather than providing a concrete resolution or a clear plan of action, the BSP, through Atty. Capule asked the depositors to return after a month. This response only added to depositors' disappointment, as they had expected a more substantial update or commitment from the central bank. To add to their frustration, the BSP did not issue an official statement about the meeting, leaving 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 waited for years, time is no longer an option. Their call for justice is about more than just financial restitution; it is about fairness, accountability, and adherence to due process.  The BSP is now responsible for aligning its actions with its words and finally putting an end to this long-running financial nightmare.

AMA Bank depositors are demanding justice, which has been long overdue. Their plea is louder than ever: the BSP must act now.