B.

LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS (RA 1405 AS AMENDED)

AYEH
CASE NO. 37
PURPOSE
BSB Group Inc. (Represented by its President, Bangayan) v Sally Go-Bangayan (G.R. No. 168644)

Summary: Sally Go, wife of President of BSBG, was employed in the company as a cashier. She was charged with
estafa on the ground that she deposited the customers’ checks to her bank acct at Security Bank. Marasigan,
representative of Security Bank testified as witness particulars of the excistence of the bank acct and that
Go deposited certain checks in said acct. Go filed a Motion to Suppress seeking the exclusion of Marasigan’s
testimony and accompanying documents, invoking RA 1405.

AYEH
CASE NO. 38
PROHIBITED ACTS
Oñate and Econ Holdings Corporation v Hon. Judge Abrogar (G.R. No. 107303)
Bruner Development Corp v Abrogar (G.R. No. 107491)

Summary: Sun Life filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioners and Diñ o which was granted. Later,
Sun Life filed for subsequent reliefs which included a motion for examination of bank accounts: BPI acct which
petitioners claim not to be owned by them, and PNB records concerning checks payable to Brunner. Notices of
garnishment of bank accts were first issued before summons were served to petitioners. Petitioners contend that
the examination of the books and ledgers of BPI, PNB and the Urban Bank was a "fishing expedition" which
the trial court should not have authorized because Oñate, whose accounts were examined, was not a
signatory to any of the documents evidencing the transaction between Sun Life and Brunner. Sun Life
argued that the examination of Oñate's bank account was justified because it was he who signed checks
transferring huge amounts from Brunner's account in the Urban Bank to PNB and BPI. Sun Life alleges that
Oñate, in his personal capacity and as president of Econ, offered to sell to Sun Life treasury bills owned by
Econ and Brunner and that said transaction was made to appear as a money placement instead of a sale of
treasury bills.1995 CASE (decision in the previous case reversed)

MACY
Case no 39
Prohibited Acts
Philippine Commercial International Bank vs CA 255 SCRA 299

Summary: Lim delivered to his cousin Lim Ong Tian a PCIB Check for P200,000.00 for the telegraphic transfer
from PCIB to Equitable Bank in the same amount. The telegraphic transfer contained a clause stating that in case
of fund transfer, the bank is without any responsibility for any loss occasioned by errors or delays. When
the checks were presented for payment, 5 bounced while 3 were held overnight for lack of funds upon
presentment. It was found that the telegraphic transfer was only remitted by PCIB after 21 days from
purchase.
MACY
Case no 40
Prohibited Acts
Union Bank of the Ph v CA GR 134699

Summary: P1M was drawn against an account with Allied Bank payable to a certain Alvarez. The check was
deposited with Union Bank but UB’s clearing staff committed an error when the check was under-encoded to only
P1,000. This was discovered by UB almost a year later. UB notified AB of the discrepancy by way of a charge slip for
999k but AB refused because the transaction was completed on the instruction of UB and the client’s account is
“insufficiently funded.” UB filed a complaint before the PCHC for payment of sum of money and filed in the
RTC a petition for the examination of the said acct in AB which was dismissed because the case of UB does
not fall under any of the exceptions to warrant a disclosure of or inquiry on the ledgers/books of account
of AB.

MACY
Case no 41 Deposits Covered
Intengan v CA GR 128996

Summary: Citibank filed a complaint for violation of section 31 in relation to section 144 of the Corporation Code
against its 2 officers, Santos and Genuino. Lim, VP of Citibank alleged that the 2 officers were actively engaged in
business endeavors that were in conflict with the business of the bank by diverting the banks’ clients to 2
companies in which they have personal financial interest. As an evidence, Lim annexed bank records purporting to
establish the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino. Some of the documents pertained to the dollar
deposits of petitioners. For this, the Provincial Prosecutor directed the filing of informations against private
respondents for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Law.

Eloise
CASE NO. 42
TOPIC: R.A. 1405; DEPOSITS COVERED
JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. Nos. 157294-95; 2006)

Summary: Ejercito was the owner of Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9—both
originally opened at Urban Bank and are now maintained at Export and Industry Bank (EIB). Ejercito was
charged with plunder. Special Prosecution Panel filed a Request for the issuance of a subpoena directing EIB to
produce various document related to the investigation, namely, Ejercito’s Trust Account and Savings Account and
statement of accounts of one named “Jose Velarde” and to testify thereon during the hearings. Ejercito claimed
that his accounts are protected under 1405 and does not fall under any of the exceptions.

Eloise
CASE NO. 43
TOPIC: RA. 1405; DEPOSITS COVERED
NORLINA G. SIBAYAN V. ELIZABETH O. ALDA (G.R. No. 233395; 2018)

Summary: Elizabeth Alda, through her daughter, Ruby, charged Sibayan of unauthorized deduction of her BDO
Savings Account as well as for failure to post certain check deposits to the said account. Sibayan claimed that the
charges filed against her were only meant to harass her as she previously filed cases of theft, estafa, and
violation of the Access Devise Regulation Act of 1998 against Ruby which proceeded from the acts of
Elizabeth of withdrawing and laundering various amounts erroneously credited by BDO to Ruby’s account.
Sibayan filed a Motion for Production of Documents seeking to inspect and copy the Statement of Accounts
of Ruby both in UCPB and BPI. She alleged that Ruby is the legal and beneficial owner of said accounts in
connection to the earlier case of theft that Sibayan filed.
Eloise
CASE NO. 44
TOPIC: R.A. 1405; EXCEPTIONS
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK (PNB) vs. EMILIO A. GANCAYCO (G.R. No. L-18343; 1965)

Summary: The special prosecutors of DOJ required PNB to produce the bank deposit records of Ernesto
Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was then
under investigation for unexplained wealth. PNB refused to disclose his bank deposits, invoking RA 1405.
Special prosecutors cited the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly Section 8 which partly states that
“bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision
of law to the contrary.”

ANGELO

Case No. 45
EXCEPTIONS
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Hon. Fidel Purisima

Summary: Caturla, customs special agent, was under investigation after he was accused of BIR with
unexplained wealth, in violation of the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Tanodbayan issued a subpoena
duces tecum to Banco Filipino, commanding its representative to furnish it with copies of the bank records
of Caturla, his wife, and unmarried children. Later on, the Tanodbyan issued another subpoena for the
accts which belonged to other persons (not family of Caturla) connected to Caturla’s unexplained wealth.
Caturla argued that the compliane of Banco Filipino will violate RA 1405.

ANGELO

Case No. 46
EXCEPTIONS
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) v. Hon. Pacifico De Castro

Summary: In a previous case, a partial judgment was rendered ordering PVTA to pay Badoc the unpaid tobacco
deliveries. Badoc filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for a Writ of Execution which was initially granted. A Writ of
Execution was addressed to Sheriff Rigor, who then issued a Notice of Garnishment addressed to the
General Manager and/or Cashier of RCBC. However, upon motion for reconsideration by PVTA, the orders
of execution were set aside, and RCBC and BADOC were ordered to restore, jointly and severally, the
account of PVTA with RCBC.

ANGELO

Case No. 47
EXCEPTIONS
Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Hon. Celso L. Magsino

Summary: Ventosa requested the transfer of $1K from First National Bank of USA to Javier in Manila through
Prudential Bank. Mellon Bank was asked to wire the transfer but it committed an error by indicating $1M instead
of $1K. Javier opened a new dollar account in the Prudential Bank and deposited $999,943.70 ($1M less
$6.30 bank charges). Spouses Javier made withdrawals and deposited them in several banks only to
withdraw them later in an apparent plan to conceal, launder, and dissipate the erroneously sent amount.
Mellon Bank filed a complaint against the Spouses Javier and several persons who may have received
directly or indirectly from the erroneously sent amount. Mellon Bank subpoenaed certain persons to
testify as to the deposits and the amount.
ARZHY
Case No. 48
Exceptions
PCIB vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84526, January 28, 1991

Summary: NLRC issued a writ of execution for the payment of laborers’ backwages against Marinduque
Mining and Industrial Corporation. The writ was unsatisfied; thus, the sheriff prepared on his own a Notice of
Garnishment addressed to 6 different banks, one of which was PCIB. With the knowledge that there was no
restraining order from the NLRC, PCIB issued a manager’s check for the amount and encashed the same the
following day. Marinduque Mining filed a complaint before the RTC against the petitioners and the sheriff
alleging unauthorized disclosure of its current account and unlawful release of funds with undue haste.

ARZHY
Case No. 49
Exceptions
Van Twest vs. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 42, February 10, 1994

Summary: Van Twest and Gloria Anacleto opened a joint ‘and/or’ foreign currency savings account with
International Corporate Bank to facilitate the funding of their joint venture agreement. Anacleto held the funds
which ENTIRELY belonged to Van Twest. When their relationship turned sour, Anacleto closed their joint
account, withdrew the remaining balance, and transferred the same to her own personal account with the
same bank. Petitioner filed a complaint against Anacleto for recovery of sum of money with prayer for a
writ of preliminary injunction before RTC. RTC issued a TRO and enjoined Anacleto and Interbank from
effecting and allowing withdrawals from Anacleto’s personal foreign currency deposit account until
further orders from the trial court.

ARZHY
Case No. 50 - A
Exceptions
Marquez vs. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001

Summary: The Office of the Ombudsman had a pending investigation against Amado Lagdameo, et al for
violation of RA 3019. OMB Desierto issued an order against Lourdes Marquez (Union Bank manager) for the
production of several bank documents for purposes of in camera* inspection of 4 bank accounts involved in the
pending case. Marquez, together with Union Bank, filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and
injunction against OMB, seeking for the declaration of her rights due to the clear conflicts between Sec. 15
(OMB’s power to inspect bank deposits) of RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act) and Sec. 2 & 3 of RA 1405. OMB
then cited Marquez for contempt.

ARZHY
Case No. 50 - B
Exceptions
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Hon. Ibay (RTC Judge), G. R. No. 137538, September 3, 2001

Summary: RTC dismissed OMB’s motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory relief filed by Marquez. OMB now
questions RTC’s jurisdiction over the question raised by Marquez, invoking GAD.
GARCIA
Case No. 51
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits: Exceptions
China Banking Corporation vs CA

Summary: Gotianuy filed a complaint for recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales of real properties and
shares of stock against his daughter Mary and her husband George Dee, alleging that Mary stole, among others, US
dollar deposits with Citibank which was subsequently deposited with China Bank. The checks were payable to
Gotianuy and Mary Dee, from Gotianuy’s accounts. After Gotianuy’s death, Elizabeth (another daughter)
filed a motion with the trial court for a subpoena directed to employees of China Bank to testify on the
case. China Bank moved for a reconsideration, arguing that foreign secrecy prohibits the disclosure of any
information with regard to foreign deposit accounts.

GARCIA
Case No. 52
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits: Exceptions
BSB Group Inc vs Sally Go

Summary: Sally Go, wife of President of BSBG, was employed in the company as a cashier. She was charged with
estafa on the ground that she deposited the customers’ checks to her bank acct at Security Bank. Marasigan,
representative of Security Bank testified as witness particulars of the excistence of the bank acct and that
Go deposited certain checks in said acct. Go filed a Motion to Suppress seeking the exclusion of Marasigan’s
testimony and accompanying documents, invoking RA 1405.

GARCIA
Case No. 53
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits: Exceptions
Rizal Commercial Bank vs Hi Tri Development

Summary: The Bakunawas, owners of land, entered into an agreement with Millan where the latter will buy the
lots with a downpayment of P1M plus clearing of the obstacles to the completion of the sale. Millan was not able to
meet her obligation which caused the Bakunawas to rescind the sale and return Millan’s downpayment. Since
Millan refused to receive such, they took out a manager’s check from RCBC and made it payable to Millan’s
company but was UNDELIVERED. Because the check was not presented, RCBC reported the 1M credit in the
manager’s check as an “unclaimed balance” to the Bureau of Treasury. The Bakunawas discovered that the
money covered by the manager’s check was subject of escheat proceedings with the RTC. Manuel
Bakunawa through their company, Hi-Tri, sent a letter to RCBC stating that the money was supposed to
remain as part of Hi-Tri’s RCBC bank account, and that it has never received a single letter from RCBC
noting the absence of fund movement and that it’s deposit would be treated as dormant.

COELI
CASE NO. 54
BANK SECRECY: EXCEPTIONS
Doña Adela Export v. Trade And Investment Development Corp (TIDCORP) and BPI

Summary: Doñ a Adela Export filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency which was granted. Included in the terms of
compromise was petitioner’s assignment of its machineries to TIDCORP and BPI, its creditors. TIDCORP and BPI
also filed a Joint Motion to Approve Agreement which contained that: a) they agree to accept all the machineries in
petitioner’s inventory; and b) Petitioner and its BOD shall waive all rights to confidentiality provided under
the provisions of Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405). Petitioner argued that such agreement did
not bind it since it it was neither signed by the petitioner, its representatives or its receiver. Only BPI and
TIDCORP signed it, then it was submitted to the court.
 CASE NO. 55
GARNISHMENT OF DEPOSITS, INCLUDING FOREIGN DEPOSITS
Dela Rama v. Villarosa and Luzon Surety

Summary: De la Rama (lessor) brought an action against lessee Villarosa and the latter's surety, the Luzon Surety,
for rescission and annulment of a contract of lease of sugarland which the court granted. By virtue of the writ of
execution, the sheriff garnished the deposit of Luzon Surety with the Philippine Trust Co. (PTC) in the
amount of Php 71.5K. Luzon Surety appealed. CA issued an injunction and modified the amount to be paid to
petitioner, which is Php 33K. Luzon surety filed a motion for the restitution of Php 38.5K (Php 71.5 minus
33K) which represents the balance refundable to it after CA modified the decision of RTC. De la Rama
opposed the motion because by virtue of the injunction issued by CA, the sheriff was never able to collect
from the PTC any portion of the amount garnished.

COELI
CASE NO. 56
GARNISHMENT OF DEPOSITS, INCLUDING FOREIGN DEPOSITS
PCIB & Henares v. CA and Marinduque Mining Corp

Summary: NLRC issued a writ of execution for the payment of laborers’ backwages against Marinduque
Mining and Industrial Corporation. The writ was unsatisfied; thus, the sheriff prepared on his own a Notice of
Garnishment addressed to 6 different banks, one of which was PCIB. With the knowledge that there was no
restraining order from the NLRC, PCIB issued a manager’s check for the amount and encashed the same the
following day. Marinduque Mining filed a complaint before the RTC against the petitioners and the sheriff
alleging unauthorized disclosure of its current account and unlawful release of funds with undue haste.

CHAM
Case No. 57
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405, as amended); Garnishment of deposits, including foreign
Karen Salvacion v. Central Bank GR No. 94723

Summary: Upon the rescue of the 12-yr old who was detained and raped by Bartelli, a tourist, police recovered US
dollar checks worth USD3, 903.20, Cocobank peso account bank book, China Bank dollar account bank book.
RTC issued an arrest warrant and granted the issuance of preliminary attachment. Deputy Sheriff served a Notice
of Garnishment on China Bank for the account, however, China bank invoked RA 1405 and Section 113 of
Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the effect that the dollar deposits of Bartelli are exempt from attachment,
garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any
administrative body.

CHAM
Case No. 58
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405, as amended); Garnishment of deposits, including foreign
deposits
GSIS v CA(GR No. 189206)

Summary: Domsat obtained a loan with GSIS as guarantor. Upon failure to pay, GSIS refused to pay the banks
concerned. It further alleged that Domsat, with Westmont Bank as the conduit, transferred the U.S. $11 Million loan
proceeds from the Industrial Bank of Korea to Citibank New York account of Westmont Bank and from there to the
Binondo Branch of Westmont Bank. GSIS requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to Westmont
Bank to produce, among others, the ledger covering the account of DOMSAT Holdings and any all
documents. Banks moved to quash the issuance of a subpoena, stating that foreign currency deposits are
absolutely confidential and may be examined only when there is a written permission from the depositor.