23.

SALAVACION v CENTRAL BANK

G.R. 94723| August 21, 1997
By: J. Asuncion
J. Torres

DOCTRINE: Foreign currency deposits are not always exempted from attachments or
garnishments made by courts or other government agencies. It does not apply whenever
there is peculiar circumstance present in the case.

HOW THE CASE STARTED:

 Greg Bartelli was arrested and was detained at the Makati Jail for raping and
detaining Karen Salavacion, who was then 12 years old at the time of the incident.
 Upon his arrest, the policemen recovered the following items from Bartelli:
a. Dollar Check amounting to USD 3,903.20
b. Cocobank Bank Book (Peso Account)
c. Dollar Account at China Banking Corporation
d. Cash amounting to 234 pesos
e. 6 door keys
f. Stuffed toy used to seduce Salvacion
 Upon filing of criminal cases for Serious Illegal Detention and Rape, Salvacion filed
for damages with preliminary attachment against Bartelli, which was granted by RTC
Makati.
 Later on, the Sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment on China Banking Corporation
and argued that garnishment did not violate the secrecy of bank deposits since the
disclosure is merely incidental to a garnishment properly and legally made by virtue of a
court order which has placed the subject deposits in custodia legis.
 However, the said bank refused such receive such notice and it invoked that under
Section 113 of Central Bank Circular, dollar deposits of Bartelli are exempt from
attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative
agency or administrative body.
 To solve the legal dispute, the counsel of Salvacion made an inquiry before the
Central Bank regarding the scope of prohibition stated in Section 113 of the Central
Bank Circular regarding attachments of foreign deposits.
 ARGUMENTS OF SALVACION: The Circular is unconstitutional because:
a. It violates due process of the law as it has taken away the right of Salvacion to
garnish the foreign bank deposits of Bartelli to satisfy the judgment in her favor;
b. It has given foreign currency depositors an undue favor or a class privilege
c. It has provided safe haven for criminals since they could escape civil liability for
their wrongful acts by merely converting their money to a foreign currency and
depositing it in a foreign currency deposit account with an authorized bank
 ARGUMENT OF CENTRAL BANK
 The reason for exempting foreign currency deposits from attachment or
garnishment is to assure the development and speedy growth of the Foreign
Currency Deposit System in the Philippines and to encourage the inflow of
foreign

ISSUE: WON exemptions of foreign currency deposits under Section 113 of Central Bank
Circular is applicable in the present case. [NO]

RULING: NO. Foreign currency deposits of Bartelli are not exempted from attachment.
 AS A RULE, in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
  IN THIS CASE, there is doubt as to the application of Section 113. Such that if it
will be ruled that exemption under Section 113 is applicable to a foreign transient,
injustice would result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like Bartelli.
 Furthermore, it would be unthinkable, that the questioned Section 113 would
be used as a device by Bartelli for wrongdoing, and in doing so, acquitting the
guilty at the expense of the innocent.
 THUS, due to the peculiarity of the present case, as it involves a minor victim, the
exemption from attachment or garnishment of foreign currency deposits cannot be
applied.

FALLO: China Bank is hereby required to comply with the writ of execution and to release
the dollar deposit of Bartelli to satisfy the judgment