Chief Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Associate Justicea Kathleen M. Salii and Alexandra F. Foster upheld the decision of Associate Justice Lourdes F. Materne when she ruled in favor of Nobuko Ichikawa who was sued by the bank for non-payment of debt.
The trial division on Jan. 9, 2008 dismissed the case with prejudice, saying it lacked subject matter jurisdiction.The defunct PSB lacked standing to pursue its claims in court, Materne stated.PSB then filed an appeal and argued that the trial court erred in issuing its order of dismissal because it was not based on any evidence and violates Civil Rules 7, (a) and due process.The Supreme Court disagreed.It said PSB’s argument is misplaced as the trial court dismissed the case because the real party in interest was not named as the plaintiff.“PSB holds no capacity to sue or be sued on its own,” the justices stated. “Appellant need only file a new matter in the trial court, correctly identifying the receiver and not the bank as the plaintiff.”According to the justices, the “trial court’s dismissal of the matter and denial of appellant’s post-judgment motion were proper.”PSB filed a complaint against Ichikawa on Aug. 30, 2004 to enforce payment from a debt.A default order was entered against Ichikawa on Nov. 30, 2004.On May 2, 2006, the court ordered Ichikawa to pay $10 every seventh and 22nd day of each month, beginning on May 7, 2006.In Nov. 2006, the government announced that PSB was insolvent and had to close down. Kaleb Udui Jr. was then appointed receiver of the bank and a series of civil and criminal proceedings were instituted against its officials for mismanagement and other issues.On Jan. 30, 2007, PSB filed a motion for contempt against Ichikawa.However, the defunct bank did not file a motion to substitute PSB by and through its receiver as the plaintiff in the matter.
