. MARQUEZ V.

DESIERTO
G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001

FACTS:

Petitioner Lourdes Marquez received an Order from respondent Ombudsman Aniano

Desierto to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera
relative to various accounts maintained at the Union Bank where petitioner is the branch
manager.

The accounts to be inspected are involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman
entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo.

It appears that a certain George Trivinio purchased trail managers check and deposited
some of it to an account maintained at petitioner’s branch.

Petitioner after meeting with the FFIB Panel to ensure the veracity of the checks agreed
to the in camera inspection.

Petitioner being unable to readily identify the accounts in question, the Ombudsman
issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank documents.

Thus, petitioner sought a declaration of her rights from the court due to the clear conflict
between RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and RA 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits).
Meanwhile, FFIB moved to cite petitioner in contempt before the Ombudsman.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the

questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank
deposits (R.A. No.1405)
2. Whether Marquez may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce
the documents requested by the Ombudsman

RULING:

1. No. The order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the

questioned account is NOT allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of
bank deposits (R.A. No.1405)

An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (R.A. No.1405) would reveal
the following exceptions:
1. Where the depositor consents in writing;
2. Impeachment case;
3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials;
4. Deposit is subject of litigation;
5. Sec. 8, R.A. No.3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of
PNB vs. Gancayco.

The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera inspection the subject

accounts with the Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, is based
on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado
Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the
Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI.

The Court ruled that before an in camera inspection may be allowed, the
following requisites must be present:
1. There must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction;
2. The account must be clearly identified
3. The inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the
court of competent jurisdiction;
4. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present
during the inspection, and
5. Such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.

In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that "Section
2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended, declares bank deposits
to be "absolutely confidential" except:

(1) In an examination made in the course of a special or general examination of a

bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity
has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to
establish such fraud or irregularity,
(2) In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to
conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only
and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank,
(3) Upon written permission of the depositor,
(4) In cases of impeachment,
(5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials, or
(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
litigation".27