MARQUEZ vs DESIERTO

MARQUEZ vs DESIERTO
G.R. NO. 135882
June 27, 2001
Pardo, J.

FACTS: Marquez, branch manager of Union Bank Julia Vargas, received an Order from
Ombudsman to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera. The
Ombudsman wanted to conduct such in camera inspection on the accounts based on a trail of
manager’s checks by a certain Trivinio who purchased 51 managers checks for a total amount
of P272M. Marquez agreed to the inspection.
Marquez wrote to the Ombudsman saying that the accounts in question cannot readily be
identified and asked for time to respond to the order. The Ombudsman replied that the Bank
should have preserved records despite the accounts being dormant.

Ombudsman issued order to direct Marquez to produce the bank documents due to the
unjustified delay by the Bank since the in camera inspection had already been extended twice.

Marquez filed for declaratory relief to clear the rights of petitioners under the bank secrecy law

ISSUE/S: Whether the in camera inspection orders are allowed as an exception to the bank
secrecy law? NO

RULING:  The in camera inspection is not allowed. There being no pending case before a court
of competent jurisdiction.
An exception to the bank secrecy law is when the money deposited is the subject matter of a
litigation.

Therefore, it may be allowed on the ground of a pending case when:

o     The case is pending in court of competent jurisdiction
o     The account must be clearly identified
o     Inspection is limited to the subject matter of the pending case
o     The Bank personnel and account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection
o     Such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case

The order for in camera inspection is based on a pending investigation of the Ombudsman for
violations of RA 3019, Sec 3(e)(g). Clearly, there is no pending litigation yet before a court of
competent authority. It is only an investigation by the Ombudsman. 
G.R. No. 189206 June 8, 2011

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM,

Petitioner, vs.
THE HONORABLE 15th DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS and INDUSTRIAL BANK
OF KOREA, TONG YANG MERCHANT BANK, HANAREUM BANKING CORP., LAND BANK
OF THE PHILIPPINES, WESTMONT BANK and DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC., Respondents.

FACTS:

On December 13, 1996, a surety bond was agreed with DOMSAT HOLDINGS, INC. as the
principal and the GSIS as administrator and the obligees are Land Bank of the Philippines, Tong
Yang Merchant Bank, Industrial Bank of Korea and First Merchant Banking Corporation collectively
known as “The Banks” with the loan granted to DOMSAT of US $ 11,000,000.00 to be used for the
financing of the two-year lease of a Russian Satellite from INTERSPUTNIK.

Domsat failed to pay the loan and GSIS refused to comply with its obligation reasoning that
Domsat did not use the loan proceeds for the payment of rental for the satellite. GSIS 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. The Banks filed a complaint before the RTC of Makati against Domsat and
GSIS.

GSIS requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records of Westmont
Bank to produce bank ledger covering the account of Domsat with the Westmont Bank (now United
Overseas Bank) and other pertinent documents. The RTC issued the subpoena but nonetheless, the RTC
then granted the second motion for reconsideration by “The Banks” to quash the subpoena granted to
GSIS.

GSIS assailed its case to the CA and CA partially granted it’s petition allowing it to look into
documents but not the bank ledger because the US $ 11,000,000.00 deposited by Domsat to Westmont
Bank is covered by R.A. 6426 or the Bank Secrecy Law.

GSIS now filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court for the decision of CA allowing the
quashal by the RTC of a subpoena for the production of bank ledger.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the deposited US $ 11,000,000.00 by Domsat, Inc. to Westmont Bank is covered by R.A.
6426 as what “The Banks” contend or it is covered by R.A. 1405 as what GSIS contends.

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of R.A. 6426 and thereby AFFIRMING the decision of Court of Appeals.

R.A. 1405 was enacted on 1955 while R.A. 6426 was enacted on 1974. These two laws both support the
confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted
for the purpose of giving encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions
and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized
loans to assist in the economic development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines
and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is
considered a law of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to
encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign
currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law. Generalia
specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426 applies in this case.

Intengan v. Court of Appeals affirmed the above-cited principle and categorically declared that for
foreign currency deposits, such as U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is Republic Act No. 6426.

In said case, Citibank filed an action against its officers for persuading their clients to transfer their dollar
deposits to competitor banks. Bank records, including dollar deposits of petitioners, purporting to
establish the deception practiced by the officers, were annexed to the complaint. Petitioners now
complained that Citibank violated Republic Act No. 1405. Supreme Court ruled that since the accounts in
question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law therefore is not Republic Act No. 1405 but Republic
Act No. 6426.
FACTS: Caturla, special agent of the Bureau of Customs, was accused by BIR before
the Tanodbayan of having allegedly acquired property manifestly out of proportion to his salary
and other lawful income, in violation of the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.”
In the course of the preliminary investigation thereof, the Tanodbayan issued a subpoena duces
tecum to the Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, commanding its representative to
appear at the Office of the Tanodbayan and furnish the latter with duly certified copies of the
records of the loans, savings and time deposits and other banking transactions appearing in the
names of Caturla, his wife, their children and friends .
Caturla moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum arguing that compliance therewith would
result in a violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits.
Then Tanodbayan not only denied the motion for lack of merit, and directed compliance with
the subpoena, but also expanded its scope through a second and third subpoena duces tecum,
BF Bank took over from Caturla in the effort to nullify the subpoenae. It filed a complaint for
declaratory relief with the CFI of Manila, praying for a judicial declaration as to whether its
compliance with the subpoenae duces tecum would constitute an infringement of the provisions
of Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 1405 in relation to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019. It also asked that
pending final resolution of the question, the Tanodbayan be provisionally restrained from
exacting compliance with the subpoenae.
Respondent Judge Purisima issued an Order denying for lack of merit the application by BF
Bank for a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order.
This Order is now impugned in the instant certiorari action instituted by BF Bank before this
Court, as having been issued with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: whether or not the “Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits”  precludes production by
subpoena duces tecum of bank records of transactions by or in the names of the wife, children
and friends of the accused
HELD: the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED,
 
NO
The provisions of R.A. No. 1405 subject of BF’s declaratory action, read as follows:
Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines
including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential
nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment,
or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or
in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation.
In Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco, we upheld the judgment of the Trial Court “sustaining
the power of the defendants (special prosecutors of the Department of Justice) to compel the
disclosure (by PNB) of bank accounts of ACCFA Administrator Jimenez (then under
investigation for unexplained wealth), .. (it being ruled) that, by enacting section 8 of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Congress clearly intended to provide an additional ground for
the examination of bank deposits ..
xxx
… while Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are “absolutely confidential .. and
[therefore] may not be examined, inquired or looked into,” except in those cases enumerated
therein, the Anti-Graft Law directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits “shall be taken into
consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary.” The only conclusion possible is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to
amend section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by providing an additional exception to the rule
against the disclosure of bank desposits.
xxx xxx xxx
… Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no
reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank
deposits confidential. .. This policy expresses the notion that a public office is a public trust and
any person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as
relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.