As to dismissal of the petition for eminent domain filed before the lower court on the grounds that the same is in violation of R.A. 8974 and for failure to comply with the court's order; We reiterate that the petition is not in violation of the aforementioned law and its act of presenting a certification issued by the bank and filing the Manifestation with Motion is sufficient compliance with the lower court's order. Thus, there is no reason for the lower court to deny the petitioner's motion for the issuance of a writ of possession much more dismiss the petition itself.

Finally, We now rule that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering the 25 June 2009 Order.

The ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Robern Development Corporation vs. Judge Jesus V. Quitain and National Power Corporation24 provided

Founded on common necessity and interest, eminent domain is the inherent right of the state (and of those entities to which the power has been lawfully delegated) to condemn private property to public use upon payment of just compensation. It may appears to be harsh and encompassing, but judicial review limits the exercise of eminent domain to the following areas of concern: (1) the adequacy of the compensation (2) the necessity of the taking and (3) the public-use character of the purpose of the taking. (Emphasis Ours.)

A careful examination of this case results to a finding that the petition for eminent domain has shown the following: (a) the adequacy of compensation - the availability of funds (savings account in the name of LRTA FAO ANTONIO C, OPPEN) deposited in an authorized government depositary which is held in abeyance subject to the orders or final disposition of the court; (b) the necessity of taking the petitioner has

24 G.R. No. 135042, September 23, 1999.

alleged the purpose for the taking of private respondent's property; and (c) the publicuse character of the purpose of takingtransportation is patently for public use.

Considering the foregoing, the public respondent should not have dismissed the petition outright. It should have at least ordered the petitioner to comply with the provisions of R.A. 8974 if he believed that the deposit is not sufficient to be considered as payment. Most importantly, the finding of the lower court that there is noncompliance to the provisions of RA 8974 for the issuance of writ of possession is not reason enough for the dismissal of the petition for eminent domain.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is hereby GRANTED, and finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the herein public respondent, this case is hereby REMANDED back to the lower court for further proceedings in order to determine the propriety of the issuance of a Writ of Possession and the expropriation of herein private respondent's property.

SO ORDERED.

Abdulwahid and Rosario, JJ., concur.

Petition granted. Case remanded to the lower court for further proceedings

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the court.

(SGD.) HAKIM S. ABDULWAHID
Associate Justice

Chairperson, Tenth (10th) Division

bspmail@bsp.gov.ph

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

CIRCULAR No. 764

Series of 2012

SUBJECT: REVISED OUTSOURCING FRAMEWORK FOR NON-BANK FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

The Monetary Board, in its Resolution. No. 1179 dated 19 July 2012, approved the revisions to the outsourcing framework of non-bank financial institutions, amending the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions (MORNBFI) particularly Section 4162Q (2008 - 4190Q) for QuasiBanks, Section 4190S for NSSLAS, Section 4190P for Pawnshops and Section 4190N for Other NBFIs, Trust Entities, Subsidiaries and Affiliates of Banks and Quasi-Banks. 1. Section 4162Q [(2008 - 4190Q) Duties and Responsibilities of Quasi-Banks and their Directors/Officers in All Cases of Outsourcing of QuasiBanking Functions] is re-titled and amended to read as follows:

Section 4162Q (2008 - 4190Q) Guidelines on Outsourcing. The rules on outsourcing of banking functions as shown in Appendix Q-37 shall be adopted insofar as they are applicable to QBs.

2. Subsection § 4406Q.9 Outsourcing Services in Trust Departments is amended to read as follows: Subsection § 4466Q.9 Outsourcing Services in Trust Departments. The rules on outsourcing of banking functions as shown in Appendix Q-37 shall be adopted insofar as they are applicable to trust departments of QBs

performing trust and other fiduciary business and investment management activities.

3. Subsection § 4701Q.13 Outsourcing of Internet and Mobile Electronic Services is amended to read as follows:

Subsection § 4701Q.13 Outsourcing of Internet and Mobile Electronic Services. The rules on outsourcing the Banking functions as shown in Appendix Q-37 shall be adopted insofar as they are applicable to quasibanks' outsourcing of internet and mobile electronic services. 4. Section

4190S Duties and Responsibilities of NSSLAS and their Directors/Officers in All Cases of Outsourcing of NSSLA Functions is retitled and amended to read as follows: Section 4190S Guidelines on Outsourcing. The rules on outsourcing of banking functions as shown in Appendix Q-37 shall be adopted insofar as they are applicable to NSSLAS.

1. Services normally associated with placement of deposits and withdrawals including the recognition based on recording of movements in the deposit accounts;

2. Granting of loans and extension of other credit exposures;

3. Position-taking and market risktaking activities;

4. Managing of risk exposures; and

5. Strategic decision-making.

4. The previous Subsection § X162.3 [(2008 - X169.3) - Outsourcing of Other Banking Functions] is deleted. The new Subsection § X162.3 of the MORB shall contain the definition of outsourcing and shall read as follows:

Subsection § X162.3 Definition. Outsourcing shall refer to any contractual arrangement between a bank and a qualified service provider for the latter to perform designated activities on a continuing basis on behalf of the bank.

5. The new Subsection § X162.4 of the MORB shall focus on the responsibility of the bank to manage the operational risks that arise from outsourcing. It shall read as follows:

Subsection § X162.4 Managing Outsourcing-Related Risks. No bank may outsource banking activities unless it has in place the appropriate processes, procedures, and information system that can adequately identify, monitor and mitigate operational risks that are borne by the bank as a result of its outsourcing activities.

A bank shall determine the materiality of its outsourcing arrangements when establishing guidelines, processes and controls in managing outsourcing risks. An outsourcing arrangement is considered material if the activity,