cases session 6

8/9/2019 Cases Session 6

1/37

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 128996. February 15, 2002]

CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROARIO LL. NERI, a!" RITA #.

$RA%NER, petitioners, &'. CO(RT OF A##EAL, )E#ARTMENT

OF *(TICE, A+I+ RA*OT%ALA, %ILLIAM FERG(ON, *O-EN

REE, a!" -IC LIM,respondents.

) E C I I O N

)E LEON, *R., J ./

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari , seeking the reversal of theDecision[1 !ate! "ul# $, 1%%& of the for'er (ifteenth Division [)of the Court of *ppeals in

C*+-.- S/ No- 02 as well as its .esolution[0 !ate! *pril 1&, 1%% !en#ing

petitioners3 'otion for reconsi!eration- 4he appellate court, in its Decision, sustaine! a

resolution of the Depart'ent of "ustice or!ering the with!rawal of infor'ations for

violation of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672 against private respon!ents-

4he facts are8

On Septe'5er )1, 1%%0, Citi5ank file! a co'plaint for violation of section 01, [6 in

relation to section 166[2 of the Corporation Co!e against two 9): of its officers, Dante ;-Santos an! uote! hereun!er8

2.1 Sometime this year, the higher management of Citibank, N.A. assigned me to

assist in the investigation of certain anomalous/highly irregular activities of the

Treasurer of the lobal Consumer rou! of the bank, namely, "ante #. Santos and

the Asst. $ice %resident in the office of &r. "ante #. Santos, namely &s. &arilou

'also called &alou( enuino. &s. &arilou enuino a!art from being an Assistant$ice %resident in the office of &r. "ante #. Santos also !erformed the duties of an

Account )fficer. An Account )fficer in the office of &r. "ante #. Santos !ersonally

attends to clients of the bank in the effort to !ersuade clients to !lace and kee! their

monies in the !roducts of Citibank, NA., such as !eso and dollar de!osits, mortgage

backed securities and money !lacements, among others.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn1


2/37

*** *** ***

+.1 The investigation in hich - as asked to !artici!ate as undertaken because

the bank had found records/evidence shoing that &r. "ante #. Santos and &s.

&alou enuino, contrary to their disclosures and the aforementioned bank !olicy,a!!eared to have been actively engaged in business endeavors that ere in conflict

ith the business of the bank. -t as found that ith the use of to '2( com!anies in

hich they have !ersonal financial interest, namely Torrance "evelo!ment

Cor!oration and lobal %acific Cor!oration, they managed or caused e*isting bank

clients/de!ositors to divert their money from Citibank, N.A., such as those !laced in

!eso and dollar de!osits and money !lacements, to !roducts offered by other

com!anies that ere commanding higher rate of yields. This as done by first

transferring bank clients monies to Torrance and lobal hich in turn !laced the

monies of the bank clients in securities, shares of stock and other certificates of third !arties. -t also a!!eared that out of these transactions, &r. "ante #. Santos and &s.

&arilou enuino derived substantial financial gains.

.1 -n the course of the investigation, - as able to determine that the bank clients

hich &r. Santos and &s. enuino hel!ed/caused to divert their de!osits/money

!lacements ith Citibank, NA. to Torrance and lobal 'their family cor!orations( for

subse0uent investment in securities, shares of stocks and debt !a!ers in other

com!anies ere as follos

***

b( Carmen -ntengan

***

d( osario Neri

***

i( ita 3raner

All the above !ersons/!arties have long standing accounts ith Citibank, N.A. in

savings/dollar de!osits and/or in trust accounts and/or money !lacements.


3/37

*s evi!ence, ;i' anne=e! 5ank recor!s purporting to esta5lish the !eception

practice! 5# Santos an! enuino- So'e of the !ocu'ents pertaine! to the !ollar

!eposits of petitioners Car'en ;l- Intengan, .osario ;l- Neri, an! .ita /- Brawner, as

follows8

a: *nne= ?*+&@[ + an ?*pplication for


4/37

Second ste! )nce the said fund transfers had been effected, lobal and/or Torrance

ould then issue its/ their checks dran against its/their Citibank accounts in favor of

the other com!anies hose financial !roducts, such as securities, shares of stocks and

other certificates, ere offering higher yields.

Third ste! )n maturity date's( of the !lacements made by Torrance and/or lobal in

the other com!anies, using the monies of the Citibank client, the other com!anies

ould then. return the !lacements to lobal and/or Torrance ith the corres!onding

interests earned.

4ourth ste! 6!on recei!t by lobal and/or Torrance of the remittances from the other

com!anies, lobal and/or Torrance ould then issue its/their on checks dran

against their Citibank accounts in favor of Santos and enuino.

The amounts covered by the checks re!resent the shares of Santos and enuino in the

margins lobal and/or Torrance had reali5ed out of the !lacements 7using the diverted

monies of the Citibank clients8 made ith the other com!anies.

4ifth ste! At the same time, lobal and/or Torrance ould also issue its/their

check's( dran against its/their Citibank accounts in favor of the bank client.

The check's( cover the !rinci!al amount 'or !arts thereof( hich the Citibank client

had !reviously transferred, ith the hel! of Santos and/or enuino, from his Citibankaccount to the Citibank account's( of lobal and/or Torrance for !lacement in the

other com!anies, !lus the interests or earnings his !lacements in other com!anies had

made less the s!reads made by lobal, Torrance, Santos and enuino.

4he co'plaints which were !ockete! as I-S- Nos- %0+%%&%, %0+1772$ an! %6+1)12

were su5se>uentl# a'en!e! to inclu!e a charge of estafa un!er *rticle 012, paragraph

195:[11 of the .evise! /enal Co!e-

*s an inci!ent to the foregoing, petitioners file! respective 'otions for the e=clusion

an! ph#sical with!rawal of their 5ank recor!s that were attache! to ;i'3s affi!avit-

In !ue ti'e, ;i' an! .e#es file! their respective counter+affi!avits- [1) In separate


5/37

against private respon!ents for allege! violation of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672, otherwise

known as the Bank Secrec# ;aw-

/rivate respon!ents3 counsel then file! an appeal 5efore the Depart'ent of "ustice

9DO":- On Nove'5er 1, 1%%6, then DO" Secretar# (ranklin


6/37

&oreover, the language of the la itself is clear and cannot be subBect to different

inter!retations. A reading of the !rovision itself ould readily reveal that the

e*ce!tion :or in cases here the money de!osited or invested is the subBect matter of

the litigation; is not 0ualified by the !hrase :u!on order of com!etent Court; hich

refers only to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of !ublic officials.

/etitioners3 'otion for reconsi!eration was si'ilarl# !enie! in a .esolution

!ate! *pril 1&, 1%%- *ppeal was 'a!e in !ue ti'e to this Court-

4he instant petition was actuall# !enie! 5# the for'er 4hir! Division of this Court in

a .esolution[1$ !ate! "ul# 1&, 1%%, on the groun! that petitioners ha! faile! to show

that a reversi5le error ha! 5een co''itte!- On 'otion, however, the petition was

reinstate![1% an! eventuall# given !ue course- [)7

In assailing the appellate court3s fin!ings, petitioners assert that the !isclosure of their 5ank recor!s was unwarrante! an! illegal for the following reasons8

I.

-N 3#ATANT $-)#AT-)N )4 .A. N). 1+, %-$AT S%)N"NTS

-##A##D &A" "-SC#)S6S )4 %T-T-)NS C)N4-"NT-A#

3ANE "%)S-TS 4) TF- S#4-SF N"S -N %)SC6T-N TF-

C)&%#A-NT -N -S. N). +?< TFAT "-" N)T -N$)#$ %T-T-)NS.

II.

%-$AT S%)N"NTS "-SC#)S6S ") N)T 4A## 6N" TF

4)6TF GC%T-)N )4 .A. N). 1+ 'i.e., :in cases here the money

de!osited or invested is the subBect matter of the litigation;(, N) 6N" AND

)TF GC%T-)N

1

%T-T-)NS "%)S-TS A N)T -N$)#$" -N AND #-T-AT-)N3THN %T-T-)NS AN" S%)N"NTS. TF -S N)

#-T-AT-)N 3THN TF %AT-S, &6CF #SS )N -N$)#$-N

%T-T-)NS "%)S-TS AS TF S63@CT &ATT TF)4.

2

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn20


7/37

$N ASS6&-N ARGUENDO TFAT TF -S A #-T-AT-)N

-N$)#$-N %T-T-)NS "%)S-TS AS TF S63@CT &ATT

TF)4, %-$AT S%)N"NTS "-SC#)S6S )4

%T-T-)NS "%)S-TS A N$TF#SS -##A# 4) HANT

)4 TF I6-S-T C)6T )", -N $-)#AT-)N )4 .A. N).1+.

III.

TF4), %T-T-)NS A NT-T#" T) %)SC6T %-$AT

S%)N"NTS 4) $-)#AT-)NS )4 .A. N). 1+ 4) FA$-N

-##A##D "-SC#)S" %T-T-)NS C)N4-"NT-A# 3ANE

"%)S-TS AN" C)"S -N -S. N). +?uestion are A-S- !ollar !eposits conse>uentl#, the applica5le law is not Republic Act

No. 1405 5ut Republic Act (RA) No. 6426, known as the ?(oreign Currenc# Deposit *ct

of the /hilippines,@ section $ of which provi!es8

Sec. 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.- All foreign currency de!osits

authori5ed under this Act, as amended by %residential "ecree No. 19, as ell as

foreign currency de!osits authori5ed under %residential "ecree No. 19+, are herebydeclared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the

written permission of the epositor! in no inst"nce sh"## such foreign currency

eposits $e ex"mine! in%uire or #oo&e into $y "ny person! go'ernment offici"#

$ure"u or office whether (uici"# or "ministr"ti'e or #egis#"ti'e or "ny other entity

whether pu$#ic or pri'"te)%rovided, hoever, that said foreign currency de!osits shall


8/37

be e*em!t from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or !rocess of any court,

legislative body, government agency or any administrative body hatsoever.[)1 'italics

su!!lied(

4hus, un!er .-*- No- &6)& there is onl# a sinle e=ception to the secrec# of foreigncurrenc# !eposits, that is, !isclosure is allowe! onl# upon the written per'ission of the

!epositor- Inci!entall#, the acts of private respon!ents co'plaine! of happene! 5efore

the enact'ent onSepte'5er )%, )771 of .-*- No- %1&7 otherwise known as the *nti+


9/37

Or!inaril#, the !is'issal of the instant petition woul! have 5een without preGu!ice to

the filing of the proper charges against private respon!ents- 4he 'atter woul! have

en!e! here were it not for the intervention of ti'e, specificall# the lapse thereof- So as

not to un!ul# prolong the settle'ent of the case, we are constraine! to rule on a

'aterial issue even though it was not raise! 5# the parties- He refer to the issue of

prescription-

.epu5lic *ct No- &6)& 5eing a special law, the provisions of *ct No- 00)&, [)0 as

a'en!e! 5# *ct No- 0&0, are applica5le8

SECTION 1. $iolations !enali5ed by s!ecial acts shall, unless otherise !rovided in

such acts, !rescribe in accordance ith the folloing rules 'a( after a year for

offences !unished only by a fine or by im!risonment for not more than one month, or

both 'b( after four years for those !unished by im!risonment for more than one

month, but less than to yearsK 'c( after eight years for those !unished byim!risonment for to years or more, but less than si* yearsK and 'd( after telve years

for any other offence !unished by im!risonment for si* years or more, e*ce!t the

crime of treason, hich shall !rescribe after tenty years *ro'ie! howe'er! That all

offences against any la or !art of la administered by the 3ureau of -nternal

evenue shall !rescribe after five years. $iolations !enali5ed by munici!al ordinances

shall !rescribe after to months.

$iolations of the regulations or conditions of certificates of !ublic convenience issued

by the %ublic Service Commission shall !rescribe after to months.

SC. 2. %rescri!tion shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the

violation of the la, and if the same be not knon at the time, from the discovery

thereof and the institution of Budicial !roceedings for its investigation and !unishment.

The !rescri!tion shall be interru!ted hen !roceedings are instituted against the guilty

!erson, and shall begin to run again if the !roceedings are dismissed for reasons not

constituting Beo!ardy.

* violation of .epu5lic *ct No- &6)& shall su5Gect the offen!er to i'prison'ent of

not less than one #ear nor 'ore than five #ears, or 5# a fine of not less than five

thousan! pesos nor 'ore than twent#+five thousan! pesos, or 5oth-[)6 *ppl#ing *ct No-

00)&, the offense prescri5es in eight #ears- [)2 /er availa5le recor!s, private respon!ents

'a# no longer 5e hale! 5efore the courts for violation of .epu5lic *ct No- &6)&- /rivate

respon!ent Vic ;i' 'a!e the !isclosure in Septe'5er of 1%%0 in his affi!avit su5'itte!

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_edn25


10/37

5efore the /rovincial (iscal-[)& In her co'plaint+affi!avit,[) Intengan state! that she

learne! of the revelation of the !etails of her foreign currenc# 5ank account onOcto5er

16, 1%%0- On the other han!, Neri asserts that she !iscovere! the !isclosure

on Octo5er )6, 1%%0- [)$ *s to Brawner, the 'aterial !ate is "anuar# 2, 1%%6- [)% Base! on

an# of these !ates, prescription has set in- [07

4he filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation in the case at 5ar for allege! violation of

.epu5lic *ct No- 1672 !i! not have the effect of tolling the prescriptive perio!- (or it is

the filing of the co'plaint or infor'ation correspon!ing to the correct offense which

pro!uces that effect-[01

It 'a# well 5e argue! that the foregoing !is>uisition woul! leave petitioners with no

re'e!# in law- He point out, however, that the confi!entialit# of foreign currenc#

!eposits 'an!ate! 5# .epu5lic *ct No- &6)&, as a'en!e! 5# /resi!ential Decree No-

1)6&, ca'e into effect as far bac$ as 1%&&. Fence, ignorance thereof cannot 5e

preten!e!- On one han!, the e=istence of laws is a 'atter of 'an!ator# Gu!icial notice[0) on the other, inorantia leis non e'cusat. [00 Even !uring the pen!enc# of this appeal,

nothing prevente! the petitioners fro' filing a co'plaint charging the correct offense

against private respon!ents- 4his was not !one, as ever#one involve! was content to

su5'it the case on the 5asis of an allege! violation of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672 9Bank

Secrec# ;aw:, however, incorrectl# invoke!-[06

%EREFORE, the petition is here5# DENIED- No pronounce'ent as to costs-

O OR)ERE).

ellosillo, ("airman), *endo+a, uisumbin, an! uena, --., concur .

[1 Rollo, pp- &1+7-

[)

(or'er /resi!ing "ustice Salo'e *-


11/37

conflict with their !ut# as such !irectors or trustees shall 5e lia5le Gointl# an! severall# for all

!a'ages resulting therefro' suffere! 5# the corporation, its stockhol!ers or 'e'5ers an! other

persons-

Hhen a !irector, trustee or officer atte'pts to ac>uire or ac>uires, in violation of his !ut#, an# interest

a!verse to the corporation in respect of an# 'atter which has 5een repose! in hi' in confi!ence,

as to which e>uit# i'poses a !isa5ilit# upon hi' to !eal in his own 5ehalf, he shall 5e lia5le as a

trustee for the corporation an! 'ust account for the profits which otherwise woul! have accrue!

to the corporation-@

[2 ?SEC- 166- iolations of t"e ode. +Violations of an# of the provisions of this Co!e or its a'en!'ents

not otherwise specificall# penalie! therein shall 5e punishe! 5# a fine of not less than one

thousan! 9/1,777-77: pesos 5ut not 'ore than ten thousan! 9/17,777-77: pesos or 5#

i'prison'ent for not less than thirt# 907: !a#s 5ut not 'ore than five (5) #ears, or 5oth, in the

!iscretion of the court- If the violation is co''itte! 5# a corporation, the sa'e 'a#, after notice

an! hearing, 5e !issolve! in appropriate procee!ings 5efore the Securities an! E=change

Co''ission /rovi!e!, 4hat such !issolution shall not preclu!e the institution of appropriate

action against the !irector, trustee or officer of the corporation responsi5le for sai! violation/rovi!e!, further, 4hat nothing in this section shall 5e construe! to repeal the other causes for

!issolution of a corporation provi!e! in this Co!e-@

[& Rollo, pp- %6+176-

[ Rollo, p- 22-

[$ Rollo, p- 2&-

[% Rollo, p- 2-

[17 Counter+affi!avit of "oven .e#es, Rollo, pp- 1)0+1)&-

[11 ?*.4IC;E 012- 3!indlin (estafa).An/ person who shall !efrau! another 5# an# of the 'eans

'entione! herein5elow shall 5e punishe! 5#8 ===

1- Hith unfaithfulness or a5use of confi!ence, na'el#8 ===

95: B# 'isappropriating or converting, to the preGu!ice of another, 'one#, goo!s, or an# other

personal propert# receive! 5# the offen!er in trust, or on co''ission, or for a!'inistration, or

un!er an# other o5ligation involving the !ut# to 'ake !eliver# of, or to return the sa'e, even

though such o5ligation 5e totall# or partiall# guarantee! 5# a 5on! or 5# !en#ing having receive!

such 'one#, goo!s, or other propert# ===@

[1) (erguson an! .aGkotwala faile! to f ile theirs, an! so were hel! to have waive! their right-

[10 *nne= ?@ of the petition, Rollo, pp- 120+1&$-

[16 *nne= ?*+),@ Rollo, pp- 0+$6-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref14


12/37

[12 *nne= ?",@ Rollo, pp- )$&+012-

[1& *nne= ?*+0,@ Rollo, pp- $2+$-

[1 C* Rollo, p- )%7-

[1$ Rollo, p- 216-

[1% .esolution !ate! Septe'5er )), 1%% Rollo, p- 207-

[)7 .esolution !ate! Septe'5er 11, )777 Rollo, p- 21-

[)1 4he a5solute confi!entialit# of foreign currenc# !eposits, su5Gect to the lone e=ception, was intro!uce!

5# /resi!ential Decree No- 1)6& pro'ulgate! on Nove'5er )1, 1%-

[)) A-S- v. Si# Cong Bieng, et al., 07 /hil- 2, 2%+2$7 (1%15).

[)0 ?*n *ct to Esta5lish /erio!s of /rescription for Violations /enalie! 5# Special *cts an!


13/37

[06 4his co'placenc# is a'pl# evi!ence! 5# the rollo of this case, which consists of 'ore than %77 pages-

4he rollo of C*+-.- S/ No- 02 appears to 5e of even greater length-

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/feb2002/128996.htm#_ednref34


14/37

Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco GRNo. 18343, 30 September 19!

Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend Section 2 of

Republic Act No. 14! b" pro#idin$ an additional e%ception to the rule

a$ainst the disclosure of ban& deposits.

(acts8 E'ilio anca#co an! (lorentino (lor, as special prosecutors of the Depart'ent of

"ustice, re>uire! the /hilippine National Bank to pro!uce at a hearing the recor!s of the

5ank !eposits of Ernesto "i'ene, for'er a!'inistrator of the *gricultural Cre!it an!

Cooperative *!'inistration, who was then un!er investigation for une=plaine! wealth-

/NB refuse! to !isclose his 5ank !eposits, invoking Section ) of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672- On

the other han!, the prosecutors cite! the *nti+raft an! Corrupt /ractices *ct, particularl#

Section $ therewith, to wit8

?Section $- Dis'issal !ue to une=plaine! wealth- If in accor!ance with the provisions of

.* 10%, a pu5lic official has 5een foun! to have ac>uire! !uring his incu'5enc#, whether

in his na'e or in the na'e of other persons, an a'ount of propert# an!or 'one#

'anifestl# out of proportion to his salar# an! to his other lawful inco'e, that fact shall 5e a

groun! for !is'issal or re'oval- /roperties in the na'e of the spouse an! un'arrie!

chil!ren of such pu5lic official, 'a# 5e taken into consi!eration, when their ac>uisition

through legiti'ate 'eans cannot 5e satisfactoril# shown- Bank deposits shall be taken

into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any

provision of law to the contrary.” /NB then file! an action for !eclarator# Gu!g'ent in

the C(I of uire! or looke! into,@ , the *nti+raft ;aw


15/37

!irects in 'an!ator# ter's that 5ank !eposits shall 5e taken into consi!eration

notwithstan!ing an# provision of law to the contrar#

Hhile No reconciliation is possi5le 5etween .epu5lic *ct No- 1672 an! .epu5lic *ct No-

071% as the two laws are so repugnant to each other- 4hus, while Section ) of .epu5lic *ctNo- 1672 provi!es that 5ank !eposits are ?a5solutel# confi!ential K an!, therefore, 'a# not

5e e=a'ine!, in>uire! or looke! into,@ e=cept in those cases enu'erate! therein, Section $

of .epu5lic *ct No- 071% 9*nti+graft law: !irects in 'an!ator# ter's that 5ank !eposits

?shall 5e taken into consi!eration in the enforce'ent of this section, notwithstan!ing an#

provision of law to the contrar#-@ 4he onl# conclusion possi5le is that Section $ of the *nti+

raft ;aw is inten!e! to a'en! Section ) of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672 5# provi!ing an

a!!itional e=ception to the rule against the !isclosure of 5ank !eposits-

Hith regar! to the clai' that !isclosure woul! 5e contrar# to the polic# 'aking 5ank

!eposits confi!ential, it is enough to point out that while Section ) of .epu5lic *ct No- 1672

!eclares 5ank !eposits to 5e ?a5solutel# confi!ential,@ it nevertheless allows such

!isclosure in the following instances8 91: Apon written per'ission of the !epositor 9): In

cases of i'peach'ent 90: Apon or!er of a co'petent court in cases of 5ri5er# or

!ereliction of !ut# of pu5lic officials 96: In cases where the 'one# !eposite! is the su5Gect

of the litigation-

Cases of une=plaine! wealth are si'ilar to cases of 5ri5er# or !ereliction of !ut# an! no

reason is seen wh# these two classes of cases cannot 5e e=cepte! fro' the rule 'aking

5ank !eposits confi!ential- 4he polic# as to one cannot 5e !ifferent fro' the polic# as to the

other- 4his polic# e=presses the notion that a pu5lic office is a pu5lic trust an! an# person

who enters upon its !ischarge !oes so with the full knowle!ge that his life, so far as relevant

to his !ut#, is open to pu5lic scrutin#-


16/37

Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190 (2006)

acts! A request for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum for the issuance of a subpoena

directing the President of Export and Industry Bank or his/her authoried representati!e toproduce documents during hearings"

Specia# Prosecution Pane# fi#ed a $equest for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum/AdTestificandum directed to the authoried representati!e of Equitab#e P%I Bank to producestatements of accounts pertaining to certain accounts in the name of &ose 'e#arde and totestify thereon"

Sandiganbayan granted both requests and subpoenas (ere issued"

Petitioner) c#aiming to ha!e #earned from the media that the Specia# Prosecution Pane# had

requested for the issuance of subpoenas for the examination of bank accounts be#onging tohim) attended the hearing of the case and fi#ed before the Sandiganbayan a #etterexpressing his concerns"

Petitioner fi#ed a *otion to +uash Subpoena Duces Tecum/Ad Testificandum" ,e c#aimedthat his bank accounts are co!ered by $A -.0 and do not fa## under any of the exceptionstherein"

"ss#e! 1hether or not petitioner2s trust account is co!ered by the term 3deposit4 as used in$A -.0

R#$ing! A## deposits of (hate!er nature (ith banks or banking institutions in the Phi#ippinesinc#uding in!estments in bonds issued by the 5o!ernment of the Phi#ippines) its po#itica#subdi!isions and its instrumenta#ities) are hereby considered as of an abso#ute#y confidentia#nature and may not be examined) inquired or #ooked into by any person) go!ernmentofficia#) bureau or office) except upon (ritten permission of the depositor) or in cases ofimpeachment) or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dere#iction of duty ofpub#ic officia#s) or in cases (here the money deposited or in!ested is the sub6ect matter ofthe #itigation"

The phrase 7of (hate!er nature7 proscribes any restricti!e interpretation of 7deposits"7

*oreo!er) it is c#ear from the immediate#y quoted pro!ision that) genera##y) the #a( app#ies

not on#y to money (hich is deposited but a#so to those (hich are in!ested" This further sho(

that the #a( (as not intended to app#y on#y to 7deposits7 in the strict sense of the (ord"

8ther(ise) there (ou#d ha!e been no need to add the phrase 7or in!ested"7 %#ear#y)

therefore) $"A" -.0 is broad enough to co!er Trust Account 9o" :0:"


17/37


18/37

G.R. No. 71479

October 18, 1990

MELLON BANK, N.A vs. MAGSINO

ACTS!

"olores $entosa re0uested the transfer of L1, from the 4irst National 3ank of &oundsville,Hest $irginia, 6.S.A. to $ictoria @avier in &anila through the %rudential 3ank.

To effect the transfer, the 4irst National 3ank re0uested the !etitioner, &ellon 3ank, hichmistakenly indicated in its ire sent to &anufacturers Fanover 3ank, a corres!ondent of %rudential 3ank the amount transferred as M6SL1,,.M instead of 6SL1,..

&anufacturers Fanover 3ank transferred one million dollars less bank charges of L?.9 to the%rudential 3ank for the account of $ictoria @avier.

@avier o!ened a ne dollar account 'No. 9+9( in the %rudential 3ank and de!osited L


19/37

-n due course, it as found out that the checks originally issued by @avier s!ouses ere alreadynegotiated and no ere de!osited to Account 2>2=1 of the %hili!!ine $eterans 3ank in thename of Ci!riano A5ada, %obladorOs la !artner and counsel to the @aviers.

&ellon 3ank then sub!oenaed rlinda 3aylosis of $eterans 3ank to sho that A5ada de!osited

FS3C checks No. 99


20/37


21/37

.epu5lic of the /hilippines

(#REME CO(RT


22/37

Hhether or not the case at 5ar falls un!er the last e=ception is the issue in the instant

petition-

4he facts are not !ispute!-

On uentl#, Anion Bank file! a co'plaint against *llie! Bank 5efore the /CFC

*r5itration Co''ittee 9*r5ico':, pra#ing that8

- - - Gu!g'ent 5e ren!ere! in favor of plaintiff against !efen!ant sentencing

it to pa# plaintiff8

1- 4he su' of NINE FAND.ED NINE4J+NINE 4FOAS*ND /ESOS

9/%%%,777-77:

)- 4he su' of 4F.EE FAND.ED SI4J+ONE *ND (OA. FAND.ED

EIF4J *ND )7 /0&1,6$7-)7 as of Octo5er %, 1%%1 representing

rei'5urse'ents for opportunit# losses an! interest at the rate of )6 per

annum arising fro' actual losses sustaine! 5# plaintiff as of


23/37

2- E=e'plar# an! punitive !a'ages against the !efen!ant in such

a'ounts as 'a# 5e awar!e! 5# this 4ri5unal in or!er to serve a lesson to

all 'e'5er+Banks un!er the /CFC u'5rella to strictl# co'pl# with the

provisions thereof

&- 4he costs of suit which inclu!es filing fee in a!!ition to litigatione=penses which shall 5e proven in the course of ar5itration-

- Such other !a'ages that 'a# 5e awar!e! 5# this 4ri5unal- 2

4hereafter, Anion Bank file! in the .egional 4rial Court 9.4C: of uir# into the le!gers5ooks of

account of *llie! Checking *ccount No- 111+71$26+$- Nee!less to sa#, the

co'plaint file! 5# herein petitioner against *llie! Banking Corporation

5efore the /hilippine Clearing Fouse Corporation 9/CFC: *r5itration

Co''ittee an! !ockete! therein as *r5[ico' Case No- %1+7&$ 9*nne=

L*L, petition: is not one for 5ri5er# or !ereliction of !ut# of pu5lic officials

'uch less is there an# showing that the su5Gect 'atter thereof is the

'one# !eposite! in the account in >uestion- /etitionerMs co'plaint

pri'aril# hing[es on the allege! !eli5erate violation 5# *llie! Bank

Corporation of the provisions of the /CFC .ule Book, Sec- )2[-0, an! as

principal reliefs, it seeks for [sic the recover# of a'ounts of 'one# as a

conse>uence of an allege! un!er+co!ing of check a'ount to

/1,777,777-77 an! !a'age[s 5# wa# of loss of interest inco'e- 3

4he Court of *ppeals affir'e! the !is'issal of the petition, ruling that the case was not

one where the 'one# !eposite! is the su5Gect 'atter of the litigation-

/etitioner collecting 5ank itself in its co'plaint file! 5efore the /CFC,

*r5ico' Case No- %1+7&$, clearl# state! that its Lcause of action against

!efen!ant arose fro' !efen!antMs !eli5erate violation of the provisions of

the /CFC .ule Book, Sec- )2-0, specificall# on An!er+Enco!ing of check

a'ounting to /1,777,777-77 !rawn upon !efen!antMs 4on!o Branch which

was !eposite! with plaintiff herein on


24/37

erroneousl# enco!e! at /1,777-77 which !efen!ant as the receiving 5ank

thereof, never calle! nor notifie! the plaintiff of the error co''itte! thus

causing actual losses to plaintiff in the principal a'ount of /%%%,777-77

e=clusive of opportunit# losses an! interest-L

(urther'ore, a rea!ing of petitioner collecting 5ankMs co'plaint in the *r5ico' case shows that its thrust is !irecte! against respon!ent !rawee

5ankMs allege! failure to infor' the for'er of the un!er+enco!ing when

Sec- )2-0 of the /CFC .ule Book is clear that it is receiving 5ankMs

9respon!ent !rawee 5ank herein: !ut# an! o5ligation to notif# the erring

5ank 9petitioner collecting 5ank herein: of an# such un!er+enco!ing of an#

check a'ount su5'itte! for clearing within the 'e'5er 5anks of the

/CFC not later than 17877 a-'- of the following clearing !a# an! pra#s

that respon!ent !rawee 5ank 5e hel! lia5le to petitioner collecting 5ank for

penalties in view of the latterMs violation of the notification re>uire'ent-

/rescin!ing fro' the a5ove, we see no cogent reason to !epart fro' the

ti'e+honore! general 5anking rule that all !eposits of whatever nature

with 5anks are consi!ere! of a5solutel# confi!ential nature an! 'a# not

5e e=a'ine!, in>uire! or looke! into 5# an# person, govern'ent official,

5ureau or office an! corollaril#, that it is unlawful for an# official or

e'plo#ee of a 5ank to !isclose to an# person an# infor'ation concerning

!eposits-

Nowhere in petitioner collecting 5ankMs co'plaint file! 5efore the /CFC!oes it 'ention of the a'ount it seeks to recover fro' *ccount No- 7111+

71$26$ itself, 5ut speaks of /%%%,777-77 onl# as an inci!ent of its allege!

opportunit# losses an! interest as a result of its own e'plo#eeMs a!'itte!

error in enco!ing the check-

4he 'one# !eposite! in *ccount No- 7111+71$26$ is not the su5Gect

'atter of the litigation in the *r5ico' case for as clearl# state! 5#

petitioner itself, it is the allege! violation 5# respon!ent of the rules an!

regulations of the /CFC- 4

Anion Bank is now 5efore this Court insisting that the 'one# !eposite! in *ccount No-

7111+71$26+$ is the su5Gect 'atter of the litigation /etitioner cites the case of *at"a/

vs- onsolidated an$ and rust ompan/ , 5where we !efine! Lsu5Gect 'atter of the action,Lthus8


25/37

- - - B# the phrase Lsu5Gect 'atter of the actionL is 'eant Lthe ph#sical

facts, the things real or personal, the 'one#, lan!s, chattels, an! the like,

in relation to which the suit is prosecute!, an! not the !elict or wrong

co''itte! 5# the !efen!ant-L

/etitioner conten!s that the Court of *ppeals confuses the Lcause of actionL with theLsu5Gect of the action-L Inusinco vs- n 7in ian, 6 petitioner points out, this Court!istinguishe! the two concepts-

- - - 4he cause of action is the legal wrong threatene! or co''itte!, while

the o5Gect of the action is to prevent or re!ress the wrong 5# o5taining

so'e legal relief 5ut the su5Gect of the action is neither of these since it is

not the wrong or the relief !e'an!e!, the su5Gect of the action is the

'atter or thing with respect to which the controvers# has arisen,

concerning which the wrong has 5een !one, an! this or!inaril# is the

propert#, or the contract an! its su5Gect 'atter, or the thing in !ispute-

4he argu'ent is well taken- He note with approval the !ifference 5etween the Lsu5Gect

of the actionL fro' the Lcause of action-L He also fin! petitionerMs !efinition of the phrase

Lsu5Gect 'atter of the actionL is consistent with the ter' Lsu5Gect 'atter of the litigation,L

as the latter is use! in the Bank Deposits Secrec# *ct-

In *ellon an$ , N.A. vs- *asino, 7 where the petitioner 5ank ina!vertentl# cause! the transfer ofthe a'ount of AS1,777,777-77 instea! of onl# AS1,777-77, the Court sanctione! the e=a'ination of

the 5ank accounts where part of the 'one# was su5se>uentl# cause! to 5e !eposite!8

- - - Sec- ) of [.epu5lic *ct No- 1672 allows the !isclosure of 5ank

!eposits in cases where the 'one# !eposite! is the su5Gect 'atter of the

litigation- Inas'uch as Civil Case No- )&$%% is ai'e! at recovering the

a'ount converte! 5# the "aviers for their own 5enefit, necessaril#, an

in>uir# into the wherea5outs of the illegall# ac>uire! a'ount e=ten!s to

whatever is conceale! 5# 5eing hel! or recor!e! in the na'e of persons

other than the one responsi5le for the illegal ac>uisition-

Clearl#,


26/37

)2-0-1- 4he .eceiving Bank shoul! infor' the erring Bank a5out the

un!er+enco!ing of a'ount not later than 17877 *-


27/37

ter's of the pa#'ent of the principal a'ount of /%%%,777-77 is 5# wa# of

several personal post!ate! checks up to uesting that in lieu of

the post+!ate! checks fro' !efen!antMs client with who' plaintiff has no

privit# whatsoever, if the !efen!ant coul! ten!er the full pa#'ent of the

a'ount of /%%%,777-77 in !efen!antMs own


28/37

'a# 5e regulate! 5# the courts, accor!ing to the

circu'stances-[L 12

/etitioner points to its pra#er in its co'plaint to show that it sought rei'5urse'ent fro'

the !rawerMs account- 4he pra#er, however, !oes not specificall# state that it was

seeking recover# of the a'ount fro' the !epositorMs account- /etitioner 'erel# aske!that LGu!g'ent 5e ren!ere! in favor of plaintiff against !efen!ant sentencin it to pa/

plaintiff; 1- 4he su' of NINE FAND.ED NINE4J+NINE 4FOAS*ND /ESOS

9/%%%,777-77:- - - - 13

On the other han!, the petition 5efore this Court reveals that the true purpose for the

e=a'ination is to ai! petitioner in proving the e=tent of *llie! BankMs lia5ilit#8

Fence, the a'ount actuall# !e5ite! fro' the su5Gect account 5eco'es

ver# 'aterial an! ger'ane to petitionerMs clai' for rei'5urse'ent as it is

onl# upon e=a'ination of su5Gect account can it 5e prove! that in!ee! a

!iscrepanc# in the a'ount cre!ite! to petitioner was co''itte!, there5#,

ren!ering respon!ent *llie! Bank lia5le to petitioner for the !eficienc#- 4he

'one# !eposite! in aforesai! account is un!enia5l# the su5Gect 'atter of

the litigation since the issue in the *r5ico' case is whether respon!ent

Bank shoul! 5e hel! lia5le to petitioner for rei'5urse'ent of the amount

of mone/ constituting the !ifference 5etween the a'ount of the check an!

the a'ount cre!ite! to petitioner, that is, /%%%,777-77, which has

re'aine! !eposite! in aforesai! account-

On top of the allegations in the Co'plaint, which can 5e verifie! onl# 5#

e=a'ining the su5Gect 5ank account, the !efense of respon!ent *llie!

Bank that the rei'5urse'ent cannot 5e 'a!e since clientMs account is not

sufficientl# fun!e! at the ti'e petitioner sent its Charge Slip, 5olsters

petitionerMs contention that the 'one# in su5Gect account is the ver#

su5Gect 'atter of the pen!ing *r5ico' case-

In!ee!, to prove the allegations in its Co'plaint 5efore the /CFC

*r5itration Co''ittee, an! to re5ut private respon!entMs !efense on the

'atter, petitioner nee!s to !eter'ine8

1- how long respon!ent *llie! Bank ha! wilfull# or negligentl# allowe! the

!ifference of /%%%,777-77 to 5e 'aintaine! in the su5Gect account without

re'itting the sa'e to petitioner


29/37

)- whether in!ee! the su5Gect account was no longer sufficientl# fun!e!

when petitioner sent its charge slip for rei'5urse'ent to respon!ent 5ank

on uir#, or the lack thereof, is i''aterial since the case !oes not

co'e un!er an# of the e=ceptions allowe! 5# the Bank Deposits Secrec# *ct-

HFE.E(O.E, the petition is DENIED-

SO O.DE.ED-


30/37

$$ &. ay Go

Fa'8 /etitioner, the BSB roup, Inc-, is a !ul# organie! !o'estic corporationpresi!e! 5# its herein representative, .icar!o Banga#an 9Banga#an:- .espon!ent Sall#o, alternativel# referre! to as Sall# Sia o an! Sall# o+Banga#an, is Banga#anMswife, who was e'plo#e! in the co'pan# as a cashier, an! was engage!, a'ong others,to receive an! account for the pa#'ents 'a!e 5# the various custo'ers of theco'pan#-

In )77), Banga#an file! with the ualifie! theft against respon!ent-

*ccor!ingl#, respon!ent was charge! 5efore the .egional 4rial Court of uash for lackof 'erit-


31/37

e"8 In theft, the act of unlawful taking connotes !eprivation of personal propert# ofone 5# another with intent to gain, an! it is i''aterial that the offen!er is a5le or una5leto freel# !ispose of the propert# stolen 5ecause the !eprivation relative to the offen!e!part# has alrea!# ensue! fro' such act of e=ecution- 4he allegation of theft of 'one#,hence, necessitates that evi!ence presente! 'ust have a ten!enc# to prove that the

offen!er has unlawfull# taken 'one# 5elonging to another- Interestingl#, petitioner hastaken pains in atte'pting to !raw a connection 5etween the evi!ence su5Gect of theinstant review, an! the allegation of theft in the Infor'ation 5# clai'ing that respon!entha! frau!ulentl# !eposite! the checks in her own na'e- But this line of argu'ent works'ore preGu!ice than favor, 5ecause it in effect, seeks to esta5lish the co''ission, not of theft, 5ut rather of so'e other cri'e pro5a5l# estafa-

uent to the act of unlawfull# taking it 5eco'es 'aterial inas'uchas this offense is a continuing one- In other wor!s, in pursuing a case for this offense,the prosecution 'a# esta5lish its cause 5# the presentation of the checks involve!-4hese checks woul! then constitute the 5est evi!ence to esta5lish their contents an! toprove the ele'ental act of conversion in support of the proposition that the offen!er hasin!ee! in!orse! the sa'e in his own na'e-

4heft, however, is not of such character- 4hus, for our purposes, as the Infor'ation inthis case accuses respon!ent of having stolen cash, proof ten!ing to esta5lish thatrespon!ent has actualie! her cri'inal intent 5# in!orsing the checks an! !epositing

the procee!s thereof in her personal account, 5eco'es not onl# irrelevant 5ut alsoi''aterial an!, on that score, ina!'issi5le in evi!ence-

He now a!!ress the issue of whether the a!'ission of


32/37

!eposits of whatever nature with 5anks an! other financial institutions in the countr#- It!eclares8

Section )-*ll !eposits of whatever nature with 5anks or 5anking institutions in the/hilippines inclu!ing invest'ents in 5on!s issue! 5# the overn'ent of the /hilippines,its political su5!ivisions an! its instru'entalities, are here5# consi!ere! as of ana5solutel# confi!ential nature an! 'a# not 5e e=a'ine!, in>uire! or looke! into 5# an#person, govern'ent official, 5ureau or office, e=cept upon written per'ission of the!epositor, or in cases of i'peach'ent, or upon or!er of a co'petent court in cases of5ri5er# or !ereliction of !ut# of pu5lic officials, or in cases where the 'one# !eposite!or investe! is the su5Gect 'atter of the litigation-

Su5se>uent statutor# enact'ents have e=pan!e! the list of e=ceptions to this polic# #etthe secrec# of 5ank !eposits still lies as the general rule, falling as it !oes within thelegall# recognie! ones of privac#- 4here is, in fact, 'uch !isfavor to construing thesepri'ar# an! supple'ental e=ceptions in a 'anner that woul! authorie un5ri!le!!iscretion, whether govern'ental or otherwise, in utiliing these e=ceptions as authorit#

for unwarrante! in>uir# into 5ank accounts- It is then perceiva5le that the present legalor!er is o5lige! to conserve the a5solutel# confi!ential nature of 5ank !eposits-

4he 'easure of protection affor!e! 5# the law has 5een e=plaine! in China BankingCorporation v- Ortega- 4hat case principall# a!!resse! the issue of whether theprohi5ition against an e=a'ination of 5ank !eposits preclu!es garnish'ent insatisfaction of a Gu!g'ent- .uling on that issue in the negative, the Court foun!gui!ance in the relevant portions of the legislative !eli5erations on Senate Bill No- 021an! Fouse Bill No- 0%, which later 5eca'e the Bank Secrec# *ct, an! it hel! that thea5solute confi!entialit# rule in .-*- No- 1672 actuall# ai's at protection fro'unwarrante! in>uir# or investigation if the purpose of such in>uir# or investigation is

'erel# to !eter'ine the e=istence an! nature, as well as the a'ount of the !eposit inan# given 5ank account-

Hhat in!ee! constitutes the su5Gect 'atter in litigation in relation to Section ) of .-*-No- 1672 has 5een pointe!l# an! a'pl# a!!resse! in Anion Bank of the /hilippines v-Court of *ppeals, in which the Court note! that the in>uir# into 5ank !eposits allowa5leun!er .-*- No- 1672 'ust 5e pre'ise! on the fact that the 'one# !eposite! in theaccount is itself the su5Gect of the action- iven this perspective, we !e!uce that thesu5Gect 'atter of the action in the case at 5ar is to 5e !eter'ine! fro' the in!ict'entthat charges respon!ent with the offense, an! not fro' the evi!ence sought 5# theprosecution to 5e a!'itte! into the recor!s- In the cri'inal Infor'ation file! with the trialcourt, respon!ent, un>ualifie!l# an! in plain language, is charge! with >ualifie! theft 5#a5using petitionerMs trust an! confi!ence an! stealing cash in the a'ountof /1,206,102-27- 4he sai! Infor'ation 'akes no factual allegation that in so'e'aterial wa# involves the checks su5Gect of the testi'onial an! !ocu'entar# evi!encesought to 5e suppresse!- Neither !o the allegations in sai! Infor'ation 'ake 'ention of the suppose! 5ank account in which the fun!s represente! 5# the checks haveallege!l# 5een kept-


33/37

In other wor!s, it can har!l# 5e inferre! fro' the in!ict'ent itself that the Securit# Bankaccount is the ostensi5le su5Gect of the prosecutionMs in>uir#- Hithout nee!lessl#e=pan!ing the scope of what is plainl# allege! in the Infor'ation, the su5Gect 'atter ofthe action in this case is the 'one# a'ounting to /1,206,102-27 allege! to have 5eenstolen 5# respon!ent, an! not the 'one# e>uivalent of the checks which are sought to

5e a!'itte! in evi!ence- 4hus, it is that, which the prosecution is 5oun! to prove with itsevi!ence, an! no other-

It co'es clear that the a!'ission of testi'onial an! !ocu'entar# evi!ence relative torespon!entMs Securit# Bank account serves no other purpose than to esta5lish thee=istence of such account, its nature an! the a'ount kept in it- It constitutes an atte'pt5# the prosecution at an i'per'issi5le in>uir# into a 5ank !eposit account the privac#an! confi!entialit# of which is protecte! 5# law- On this score alone, the o5Gection pose!5# respon!ent in her 'otion to suppress shoul! have in!ee! put an en! to thecontrovers# at the ver# first instance it was raise! 5efore the trial court-

In su', we hol! that the testi'on# of uire into such accounts, then such!ou5ts 'ust 5e resolve! in favor of the for'er- 4his attitu!e persists unless congresslifts its finger to reverse the general state polic# respecting the a5solutel# confi!entialnature of 5ank !eposits- /etition !enie!-


34/37

G.R. No. 200238 No&eber 20, 2012

#ILI##INE A-ING $AN #$AN a!" #AC(AL M. GARCIA III, a'

re:re'e!a;&e o< #=;;::;!e a&;!>' $a!? a!" ;! =;' :er'o!a

a:a;y, /etitioners,

vs-ENATE IM#EACMENT CO(RT, o!';';!> o< =e 'e!aor' o< =e re:ub; o< =e

:=;;::;!e' a;!> a' 'e!aor @u">e', !aey/ *(AN #ONCE ENRILE, *INGGO

E*ERCITO ETRA)A, -ICENTE C. OTTO III, ALAN #ETER . CAETANO,

E)GAR)O *. ANGARA, *OER #. ARROO, #IA . CAETANO, FRANLIN M.

)RILON, FRANCI G. EC()ERO, TEOFITO G(INGONA III, GREGORIO $.

ONAAN II, #ANFILO M. LACON, MAN(EL M. LA#I), LOREN $. LEGAR)A,

FER)INAN) R. MARCO, *R., ERGIO R. OMENA III, FRANCI IO

#ANGILINAN, AB(ILINO #IMENTEL III, RAL# G. RECTO, RAMON RE-ILLA, *R.,

ANTONIO F. TRILLANE I-, MANN -ILLAR a!" TE ONORA$LE MEM$EROF TE #ROEC(TION #ANEL OF TE O(E OF

RE#REENTATI-E, .espon!ents-

. E S O ; A 4 I O N

#ERLAD$ERNA$E, J.:

/etitioners /hilippine Savings Bank 9/SBank: an! /ascual uests for su5poena !uces

tecu' a! testifican!u') to /SBank an!or its representatives re>uiring the' to testif#

an! pro!uce 5efore the I'peach'ent Court !ocu'ents relative to the foreign currenc#

accounts that were allege! to 5elong to then Suprerpe Court Chief "ustice .enato C-

Corona-

On Nove'5er 2, )71), an! !uring the pen!enc# of this petition, petitioners file! a

uent events

have overtaken the petition an! that, with the ter'ination of the i'peach'ent

procee!ings against for'er Chief "ustice Corona, the# are no longer face! with the!ile''a of either violating .epu5lic *ct No- &6)& 9.* &6)&: or 5eing hel! in conte'pt

of court for refusing to !isclose the !etails of the su5Gect foreign currenc# !eposits-

It is well+settle! that courts will not !eter'ine >uestions that have 5eco'e 'oot an!

aca!e'ic 5ecause there is no longer an# Gusticia5le controvers# to speak of- 4he

Gu!g'ent will not serve an# useful purpose or have an# practical legal effect 5ecause, in

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt3


35/37

the nature of things, it cannot 5e enforce!-6 In ancho+on v- Secretar# of ;a5or an!

E'plo#'ent,2 the Court rule!8

It is a rule of universal application that courts of Gustice constitute! to pass upon

su5stantial rights will not consi!er >uestions in which no actual interests are involve!

the# !ecline Guris!iction of 'oot cases- *n! where the issue has 5eco'e 'oot an!aca!e'ic, there is no Gusticia5le controvers#, so that a !eclaration thereon woul! 5e of

no practical use or value- 4here is no actual su5stantial relief to which petitioners woul!

5e entitle! an! which woul! 5e negate! 5# the !is'issal of the petition- 9Citations

o'itte!:

In!ee!, the 'ain issue of whether the I'peach'ent Court acte! ar5itraril# when it

issue! the assaile! su5poena to o5tain infor'ation concerning the su5Gect foreign

currenc# !eposits notwithstan!ing the confi!entialit# of such !eposits un!er .* &6)&

has 5een overtaken 5# events- 4he supervening conviction of Chief "ustice Corona on

HE CONCA.8

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/nov2012/gr_200238_2012.html#fnt5


36/37

a&a;o! &'. Ce!ra $a!? o< =e #=;;::;!e', 278 CRA 27 1997

Fa'/ reg Bertelli, an *'erican tourist, co+a=e! an! lure! petitioner Qaren Salvacion

to go with hi' to his apart'ent- reg Bertelli !etaine! Qaren Salvacion for 6 !a#s an!

was a5le to rape the chil!- *fter police'en an! people lvicing near5#, rescue! Qaren,reg Bertelli was arreste! an! !etaine! at Gail-

Deput# Sheriff of


37/37

presu'e! that the law'aking 5o!# inten!e! right an! Gustice to prevail- LNinguno non

!eue enri>uecerse tortiera'ente con !ano !e otro-L Si'pl# state!, when the statute is

silent or a'5iguous, this is one of those fun!a'ental solutions that woul! respon! to

the vehe'ent urge of conscience-

It woul! 5e unthinka5le, that the >uestione! Section 110 of Central Bank No- %&7 woul!5e use! as a !evice 5# accuse! reg Bartelli for wrong!oing, an! in so !oing,

ac>uitting the guilt# at the e=pense of the innocent-

cases session 6

Documents