CASE BRIEF Lisa Marie J.

Clemente

CASE NAME:

CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROSARIO LL. NERI, and RITA P. BRAWNER, petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, WILLIAM FERGUSON, JOVEN
REYES, and VIC LIM, respondents.

COURT NAME: SUPREME COURT

DATE OF THE DECISION: February 15, 2002

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Citibank filed a complaint against two of its officers, Dante Santos and Marilou Genuino for
violation of section 31 in relation to section 144 of the Corporation Code where they as officers
were accused of violating their duties by acquiring an interest adverse to Citibank. According to
the complaint, Santos & Genuino allegedly caused the transfer of deposits/ money placements
of three Citibank large depositors namely Carmen Intengan, Rosario Neri and Rita Brawner
(referred to in the case as the petitioners) to investment corporations Torrance and Global
where Santos and Genuine have business interest therein, being their family corporation.

In the course of the trial, Citibank officers – Vic Lim and Joven Reyes caused the disclosure of
the bank deposit dollar accounts of Intengan, Neri and Brawner by attaching said record of
accounts in an affidavit executed by Lim. Lim and Reyes saw the necessity of presenting such in
order to establish the allegation against Santos and Genuino.

Intengan, Neri and Brawner filed a motion for the exclusion and physical withdrawal of their
bank records and averred that Lim, Reyes including other officers of Citibank namely Rajkotwala
and Ferguson violated the Bank Secrecy Law by the unauthorized disclosure of their money
deposits in Citibank. Lim and Reyes, on the other hand, filed a counter affidavit stating the
necessity of the disclosure because although they were not the parties, their accounts were
relevant to the complete prosecution of the case against Santos and Genuino. They claimed that
as long as the bank deposits are material to the case, although not necessarily the direct subject
matter thereof, a disclosure of the same is proper and falls within the scope of the exceptions
provided for by R.A. No. 1405, Bank Secrecy Law. The pertinent provision of the law is as
follows:

Section 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including
investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its
instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written
permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of
 bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the
subject matter of the litigation.

Section 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person
other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

1. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Hermino T. Ubana, Sr. recommended the dismissal of

Intengan et al’s complaints.
2. The recommendation was overruled by Provincial Prosecutor Mauro M. Castro who
directed the filing of informations against Lim et al for alleged violation of Republic Act
No. 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Law.
3. Intengan et al filed an appeal before the Department of Justice (DOJ).
4. DOJ Secretary Franklin M. Drilon issued a Resolution ordering the withdrawal of the
aforesaid informations against Lim et al.
5. Intengan et al’s motion for reconsideration was denied by DOJ’s Acting Secretary
Demetrio G. Demetria.
6. Intengan et al filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus before the First Division of
Supreme Court (SC).
7. The First Division of SC referred the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) being a
concurrent court of the extraordinary writs prayed for.
8. CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition of Intengan.
9. Intengan et al filed before the Supreme Court , a petition for review on certiorari the
adverse decision of CA.

ISSUES:

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES:

Whether or not, Lim, Reyes and the rest of the respondents, violated RA 1405 or the Bank
Secrecy Law by the illegal disclosure of Intengan, Neri and Brawner’s confidential bank dollar
deposits?

Whether or not the disclosure of Intengal et al’s dollar accounts is proper and falls within the
scope of the exceptions provided for by R.A. No. 1405?

Whether or not R.A. No. 1405 is the applicable law of the case

JUDGMENT:

The petition is denied.

The petitioners, Intengan et al and the respondents, CA, Lim, Reyes et al were all wrong in
asserting that the applicable law for this case is R.A. No. 1405 or the Bank Secrecy Law. Clearly
from the facts of the case, the accounts in question are US dollar deposits, therefore the
applicable law should be Republic Act No. 6426 or the "Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the
Philippines”. The pertinent provision of the law is as follows:

Sec. 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.- All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under
Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature
and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such foreign currency
deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official bureau or office whether
judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private: Provided, however,
that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or
process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.

Thus, under R.A. No. 6426, there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency
deposits, that is, disclosure will be allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor.

A case for violation of R.A. No. 6426 should have been the proper case brought against Lim et al.
They admitted that they had disclosed details of Intengan et al’s dollar deposits without the
latter’s written permission. It does not matter if that such disclosure was necessary to establish
Citibank’s case against Santos and Genuino. Lim’s act of disclosing details said bank records
regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes, is a clear transgression of
law.

Intengan et al could have refiled their complaints this time in violation of the proper law
applicable to the case (which is RA 6426) but because such law is a special law, it is governed by
Act. No.3326 which states the prescription period in filing cases under special laws. Applying
such, the offense prescribes in eight years. Per available records, Lim et al may no longer be held
liable for violation of Republic Act No. 6426. Lim made the disclosure in September of 1993 in
his affidavit submitted before the Provincial Fiscal. In her complaint-affidavit, Intengan stated
that she learned of the revelation of the details of her foreign currency bank account on
October 14, 1993. On the other hand, Neri asserts that she discovered the disclosure on
October 24, 1993. As to Brawner, the material date is January 5, 1994. Based on any of these
dates, prescription has set in, leaving them with no remedy in law,

Addendum:
There are now 2 exceptions for which a bank may disclose foreign currency deposits. They are
as follows:
1. upon the written assent or permission of the depositor
2. in cases covered by the Anti-Money Laundering Act