Lopez, Allia M.

Date of Submission: 12 October 2020

03-1819-02208/BS Accountancy Case Study
Activity 5: Check for Understanding DAY 8 AND 11

DAY 8
If it is proved that the Gidwani spouses and the 86 individuals, with the vital assistance
of RCBC, deceived PDIC and issued 683 checks amounting to P98,733,690.21 with deliberate
intent to defy the law, they cannot claim from PDIC. But it shall be supported with evidence that
Gidwani spouses tried to resemble the deposits in the insurance, making it appear like it was
paid and owned by 86 different individuals when the truth is, all the deposits were upheld for the
sole benefit of themselves.
This judgement is beacuse deposit accounts which are fraudulent are not entitled to
further agreed payments. If the hypothesis is ascertained that the 86 individuals are not entitled
to the proceeds of the deposit insurance, this case will not be covered under Philippine Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act. Gidwani spouses who are the true beneficial holders thereof can
only be entitled to a maximum deposit coverage.
If it was a mere suspicion and Gidwani spouses proved with necessary evidence that
the hypothesis is just a “a feeling of suspicion”, they can claim from PDIC.
They should provide proofs of facts that the subject bank accounts were actually owned
by the said 86 individuals. If the presumption that each individual depositor is the owner of the
funds under his name in a bank deposit was not refuted by PDIC, they themselves shall act on
the applications of the individual claimants and effectively rule the lawfulness of their claims by
approving the same.
Day 11
5.1.1 Bond principal and obligee.
Because OBLIGEES require said PRINCIPAL to give a good and sufficient bond in the
stated sum to secure the full and faithful performance on his part of said contract/agreement.
5.1.2 Domsant Holdings
5.1.3 Foreign
5.1.4
NO,
Domsat's deposit of $11,000,000.00 in Westmont Bank will be covered by the Bank
Secrecy Law, if as such, it cannot be examined, inquired or looked into without the written
consent of its owner. It accounts to a transfer of foreign currency deposit account or receipt from
another foreign currency deposit account, whether for payment of obligation or otherwise.
There are two laws that both supports the confidentiality of bank deposits: Republic Act
No. 1405 and Republic Act No. 6426. Republic Act No. 1405 is deliberated to be a law of
general application.  On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was anticipated to boost
deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law intended especially for foreign
currency deposits in the Philippines.  A general law does not nullify a specific or special law.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.