Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board, G.R. No.

L-70054, July 8, 1986- Buere

Banco Filipino v. Monetary Board

G.R. No. 70054, July 08, 1986
Cruz, J.:

Disqualification by reason of Privileged Communication

DOCTRINE: Rule 130 Sec 21 (e) (information disclosed/learnt by a public officer in official confidence
cannot be used in evidence). Protection is made for public interest, not for that public officer. Where
there is no public interest that would be prejudiced, such invoked rule will not be applicable.

FACTS: Petitioner Bank (Banco Filipino) initially petitioned before RTC Makati, for RTC Makati to order the
respondents to produce copy of certain documents that, according to them, are relevant and material in relation
to the assailment of the impartiality during deliberations made by respondents. Two of those subject documents
are the: (1) copy of attachments of reports; and (2) the tape/recordings of Monetary Board deliberations, in
relation to the foreclosure of Banco Filipino. RTC Makati ordered the respondents to produce such documents
to the petitioner Bank. Now, this case before the Supreme Court. The respondents argue that the documents
being sought to be reproduced are categorized as privileged communication (or that obtained in confidence),
hence, should not be allowed to be disclosed to the public.

ISSUE: Whether the subject documents are privileged communication, falling under the provision of the Rules
of Court, hence, cannot be admitted in evidence.

RULING: NO. As observed by the Supreme Court, the subject documents are material to the issue of the case.
And since there is no damage that may be imputed to the public, it can be said that such documents can be
presented as evidence before the Court.

Regarding copies of the letter and reports of first Conservator, Mr. Basilio Estanislao, to the Monetary
Board and to Central Bank Governor Fernandez (Item No. 2) these appear relevant as petitioner has asserted
that the above-named Conservator had in fact wanted to resume normal operations of Banco Filipino but then
he was thereafter replaced by Mr. Gilberto Teodoro. The letter and reports could be favorable or adverse to the
case of petitioner but whatever the result may be, petitioner should be allowed to photocopy the same.

As to the tapes and transcripts of the Monetary Board deliberations on the closure of Banco Filipino and
its meetings on July 27, 1984, and March 22, 1985, (Item No. 1), respondents contend that "it is obvious from
the requirement (Sections 13 and 15 of the Central Bank Act) that the subject matter (of the deliberations),
when resolved. . . shall be made available to the public but the deliberations themselves are not open to
disclosure but are to be kept in confidence." This Court, however, sees it in a different light. The deliberations
may be confidential but not necessarily absolute and privileged. There is no specific provision in the Central
Bank Act, even in Sections 13 and 15 thereof, which prohibits absolutely the courts from conducting an inquiry
on said deliberations when these are relevant or material to a matter subject of a suit pending before it. The
disclosure is here not intended to obtain information for personal gain. There is no indication that such
disclosure would cause detriment to the government, to the bank or to third parties. Significantly, it is the bank
itself here that is interested in obtaining what it considers as information useful and indispensably needed by it
to support its position in the matter being inquired to by the court below.

On the other hand, respondents cite Section 21, Rule 130, Rules of Court which states:
 Section 21. Privileged Communications. The following persons cannot testify as to matters
learned in confidence in the following cases:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) A public officer cannot be examined during his term of office or afterwards, as to
communications made to him in official confidence, when the court finds that the public interest
would suffer by disclosure.

But this privilege, as this Court notes, is intended not for the protection of public officers but for the protection
of public interest (Vogel vs. Gruaz 110 U.S. 311 cited in Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1980 Ed.
Vol. 5, p. 211). Where there is no public interest that would be prejudiced, this invoked rule will not be
applicable.

The rule that a public officer cannot be examined as to communications made to him in official
confidence does not apply when there is nothing to show that the public interest would suffer by
the disclosure question. ... ,( Agnew vs. Agnew,'52 SD 472, cited in Martin Rules of Court of the
Philippines, Third Edition, Vol. 5, p. 199).

In the case at bar, the respondents have not established that public interest would suffer by the disclosure
of the papers and documents sought by petitioner. Considering that petitioner bank was already closed as of
January 25, 1985, any disclosure of the aforementioned letters, reports, and transcripts at this time pose no
danger or peril to our economy. Neither will it trigger any bank run nor compromise state secrets. Respondent's
reason for their resistance to the order of production are tenuous and specious. If the respondents public officials
acted rightfully and prudently in the performance of their duties, there should be nothing at all that would
provoke fear of disclosure

On the contrary, public interests will be best served by the disclosure of the documents. Not only the
banks and its employees but also its numerous depositors and creditors are entitled to be informed as to whether
or not there was a valid and legal justification for the petitioner's bank closure. It will be well to consider that—

Public interest means more than a mere curiosity; it means something in which the public, the
community at large, has some pecuniary interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are
affected (State vs. Crocket, 206, p. 816 cited in Words and Phrases, Vol. 35, p. 229).