By FIL C. SIONIL
The recent buzz in the banking corridor involving a top-tier private bank officer’s alleged “romantic liaison” within the workplace has caught my attention, especially given the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ (BSP) plan to tighten governance standards and the fit-and-proper rule for bank directors and officers.
Yes, Virginia, it’s a bit steamy. I will no longer delve into the so-called “amorous relationship” the bank officer was involved in. Though, from what I’ve gathered, it wasn’t surprising considering that most industry players already knew of the demeanor.
And the latest I heard, bank management has shown him the exit door.
The hanging question now is: will the resignation be enough to nullify or invalidate the breach of the code of ethics in the workplace, particularly in an industry where trust and confidence are imperative?
Apparently, the answer is a big No, Virginia! “There’s reputational risk involved here. The negative publicity and the ensuing public perception may altogether impact the reputation of the institution,” explains an official familiar with the issue.
Fit-and-proper assessments of top-tier and second-tier bank officials (from vice presidents up) for regulatory confirmation by the BSP is “a continuing process, not only upon entry,” and “resignation will not exonerate” the wrongdoer.
Since this issue surfaced on social media, the official says it is now “incumbent” upon bank management to “submit a report to the BSP” detailing the reason for the departure and, naturally, the plans for replacement moving forward.
All things considered, specifically adherence to due process, an inquiry will be conducted, and the results will determine whether there are “grounds for the officer to be included in the watchlist.:
I’ve covered central banking, finance, the economy, and the market for most of my journalism journey, and only now have I realized that the BSP maintains a watchlist for specific administrative mistakes, operational failures, or financial delinquencies.
It is covered in the Manual of Regulations for Banks (MORB). Under the MORB, the BSP maintains two types of watchlists: List A and List B.
List A pertains to permanent disqualification. A final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude triggers permanent or perpetual disqualification from serving as a director or officer across all BSP-supervised financial institutions (BSFIs).
And what crimes constitute moral turpitude? Based on BSP legal rules, they include swindling, embezzlement, theft, robbery, falsification, fraud, and social crimes such as bigamy and smuggling.
List B refers to temporary disqualification. Officers and employees will be prohibited or barred from holding key positions in all BSFIs for five years due to, among other things, financial delinquency, past-due obligations, or operational laxity causing harm or elevated risk.
This means the concerned bank executive cannot “merely hide behind” a so-called “oversight” if their decisions “fundamentally compromise the bank.”
As the wheels of business continue to churn, this corner of the banking corridor prays that bank officials, though they may not be entirely perfect, remain grounded, regardless of their position and power.
Talk back to me at sionil731@gmail.com
