DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed upon the written
permission of the depositor.

The following facts are established: (1) Jose Gotianuy and Mary Margaret Dee are co-payees of
various Citibank checks; (2) Mary Margaret Dee withdrew these checks from Citibank; (3) Mary
Margaret Dee admitted in her Answer to the Request for Admissions by the Adverse Party sent to
her by Jose Gotianuythat she withdrew the funds from Citibank upon the instruction of her father
Jose Gotianuy and that the funds belonged exclusively to the latter; (4) these checks were endorsed
by Mary Margaret Dee at the dorsal portion; and (5) Jose Gotianuy discovered that these checks
were deposited with China Bank as shown by the stamp of China Bank at the dorsal side of the
checks.

Since Jose Gotianuy is the named co-payee of Mary Margaret Dee in the Citibank checks, which
checks were deposited by Mary Margaret Dee in China Bank, then, Jose Gotianuy is likewise a
depositor thereof. As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and which are undisputably now
deposited with China Bank, Jose Gotianuy has the right to inquire into the said deposits. Jose
Gotianuy’s request for the assailed subpoena is tantamount to an express permission of a depositor
for the disclosure of the name of the account holder.On that basis, no written consent from Mary
Margaret Dee is necessitated.

All things considered and in view of the distinctive circumstances attendant to the present case, we
are constrained to render a limited PRO HAC VICE RULING. Clearly it was not the intent of the
legislature when it enacted the law on secrecy on foreign currency deposits to perpetuate injustice.
This Court is of the view that the allowance of the inquiry would be in accord with the rudiments of
fair play, the upholding of fairness in our judicial system and would be an avoidance of delay and
time-wasteful and circuitous way of administering justice.

 BSB Group, Inc.,vs. Sally Go, G.R. No. 168644, February 16, 2010

BSB GROUP, INC., represented by its President, Mr. RICARDO BANGAYAN,Petitioner,-versus-

SALLY GO a.k.a. SALLY GO-BANGAYAN,Respondent. -
G.R. No. 168644, THIRD DIVISION, February 16, 2010, PERALTA, J.

We hold that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank account
with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in support
thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They are likewise
irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and reasonable connection
to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft.

FACTS

Petitioner, the BSB Group, Inc., is a duly organized domestic corporation presided by its herein
representative, Ricardo Bangayan (Bangayan). Respondent Sally Go, alternatively referred to as
Sally Sia Go and Sally Go-Bangayan, is Bangayans wife, who was employed in the company as a
cashier, and was engaged, among others, to receive and account for the payments made by the
various customers of the company.

273
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

Bangayan Filed a case

In 2002, Bangayan filed with the Manila Prosecutors Office a complaint for estafa and/or qualified
theft against respondent, alleging that several checks representing the aggregate amount
of P1,534,135.50 issued by the companys customers in payment of their obligation were, instead of
being turned over to the companys coffers, indorsed by respondent who deposited the same to her
personal banking account maintained at Security Bank and Trust Company (Security Bank).

Accordingly, respondent was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila.

Respondent entered a negative plea when arraigned. The trial ensued. On the premise that
respondent had allegedly encashed the subject checks and deposited the corresponding amounts
thereof to her personal banking account, the prosecution moved for the issuance of
subpoena ducestecum /ad testificandum against the respective managers or records custodians of
Security Banks Divisoria Branch, as well as of the Asian Savings Bank (now Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Co. [Metrobank]). The trial court granted the motion and issued the corresponding subpoena.
Respondent filed a motion to quash the subpoena, addressed to Metrobank, noting to the court that
in the complaint-affidavit filed with the prosecutor, there was no mention made of the said bank
account, to which respondent, in addition to the Security Bank account, allegedly deposited the
proceeds of the supposed checks.
Metrobank Motion to Quash-confedentiality
-

Petitioner, opposing respondents move, argued for the relevancy of the Metrobank account on the
ground that the complaint-affidavit showed that there were two checks which respondent allegedly
deposited in an account with the said bank.To this, respondent filed a supplemental motion to
quash, invoking the absolutely confidential nature of the Metrobank account under the provisions
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1405. The trial court did not sustain respondent; hence, it denied the
motion to quash for lack of merit.

Meanwhile, the prosecution was able to present in court the testimony of Elenita Marasigan
(Marasigan), the representative of Security Bank. In a nutshell, Marasigans testimony sought to
prove that between 1988 and 1989, respondent, while engaged as cashier at the BSB Group, Inc.,
was able to run away with the checks issued to the company by its customers, endorse the same,
and credit the corresponding amounts to her personal deposit account with Security Bank. In the
course of the testimony, the subject checks were presented to Marasigan for identification and
marking as the same checks received by respondent, endorsed, and then deposited in her personal
account with Security Bank.
Metrotank invokes privilege of confidentiality
But before the testimony could be completed, respondent filed a Motion to Suppress, seeking the
exclusion of Marasigans testimony and accompanying documents thus far received, bearing on the
subject Security Bank account. This time respondent invokes, in addition to irrelevancy, the
privilege of confidentiality under R.A. No. 1405.
Tc -> denied motion CA ->
reversed
The Trial court denied said motion as well as the motion for reconsideration filed by the
respondent. CA reversed the decision and ordered that the witness’ testimony be stricken out from
the record.
->
BSB contentions
In this Petition under Rule 45, petitioner averred in the main that the Court of Appeals had
seriously erred in reversing the assailed orders of the trial court, and in effect striking out
Marasigans testimony dealing with respondents deposit account with Security Bank. It asserted

274
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

that apart from the fact that the said evidence had a direct relation to the subject matter of the case
for qualified theft and, hence, brings the case under one of the exceptions to the coverage of
confidentiality under R.A. 1405.
Respondents Contention ->
Serity Back
For her part, respondent claimed that the money represented by the Security Bank account was
neither relevant nor material to the case, because nothing in the criminal information suggested
that the money therein deposited was the subject matter of the case. Thus, the checks which the
prosecution had Marasigan identify, as well as the testimony itself of Marasigan, should be
suppressed by the trial court at least for violating respondents right to due process. More in point,
respondent opined that admitting the testimony of Marasigan, as well as the evidence pertaining to
the Security Bank account, would violate the secrecy rule under R.A. No. 1405.

ISSUES

WON the testimony of Marasigan and the accompanying documents are irrelevant to the case, and
whether they are also violative of the absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits and, hence,
excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405.
YES
RULING

YES. The Court, after deliberative estimation, finds the subject evidence to be indeed inadmissible.
It is conceded that while the fundamental law has not bothered with the triviality of specifically
addressing privacy rights relative to banking accounts, there, nevertheless, exists in our jurisdiction
a legitimate expectation of privacy governing such accounts. The source of this right of expectation
is statutory, and it is found in R.A. No. 1405, otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955.
①
R.A. No. 1405 has two allied purposes. It hopes to discourage private hoarding and at the same
②encourage the people to deposit their money in banking institutions, so that it may be utilized
time
by way of authorized loans and thereby assist in economic development. Owing to this piece of
legislation, the confidentiality of bank deposits remains to be a basic state policy in the Philippines.
In taking exclusion from the coverage of the confidentiality rule, petitioner in the instant case posits
that the account maintained by respondent with Security Bank contains the proceeds of the checks
that she has fraudulently appropriated to herself and, thus, falls under one of the exceptions in
Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 that the money kept in said account is the subject matter in litigation. To
highlight this thesis, petitioner avers, citing Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co] that the
subject matter of the action refers to the physical facts; the things real or personal; the money,
lands, chattels and the like, in relation to which the suit is prosecuted, which in the instant case
should refer to the money deposited in the Security Bank account. On the surface, however, it seems
-

that petitioners theory is valid to a point, yet a deeper treatment tends to show that it has argued
quite off-tangentially. This, because, while Mathay did explain what the subject matter of an action
is, it nevertheless did so only to determine whether the class suit in that case was properly brought
to the court.

What indeed constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has
been pointedly and amply addressed in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, in which
the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be
premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action.

275
 DEAN’S CIRCLE 2019 – UST FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW

In other words, it can hardly be inferred from the indictment itself that the Security Bank account is
the ostensible subject of the prosecutions inquiry. Without needlessly expanding the scope of what
is plainly alleged in the Information, the subject matter of the action in this case is the money
amounting to P1,534,135.50 alleged to have been stolen by respondent, and not the money
equivalent of the checks which are sought to be admitted in evidence. Thus, it is that, which the
prosecution is bound to prove with its evidence, and no other.

In sum, we hold that the testimony of Marasigan on the particulars of respondents supposed bank
account with Security Bank and the documentary evidence represented by the checks adduced in
support thereof, are not only incompetent for being excluded by operation of R.A. No. 1405. They
are likewise irrelevant to the case, inasmuch as they do not appear to have any logical and
reasonable connection to the prosecution of respondent for qualified theft. We find full merit in and
affirm respondents objection to the evidence of the prosecution. The Court of Appeals was,
therefore, correct in reversing the assailed orders of the trial court.

 Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation vs. Hi-Tri Development Corporation,

672 SCRA 514 (2012)

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION vs. HI-TRI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION and

LUZ R. BAKUNAWA.
G.R. No. 192413, SECOND DIVISION, June 13, 2012, JUSTICE SERENO

Escheat proceedings refer to the judicial process in which the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, steps in
and claims abandoned, left vacant, or unclaimed property, without there being an interested person
having a legal claim thereto. It is a proceeding whereby the state compels the surrender to it of
unclaimed deposit balances when there is substantial ground for a belief that they have been
abandoned, forgotten, or without an owner.In the case of dormant accounts, the stateinquires into the
status, custody, and ownership of the unclaimed balance to determine whether the inactivity was
brought about by the fact of death or absence of or abandonment by the depositor.

The law sets a detailed system for notifying depositors of unclaimed balances. This notification is
meant to inform them that their deposit could be escheated if left unclaimed. Accordingly, before filing
a sworn statement, banks and other similar institutions are under obligation to communicate with
owners of dormant accounts. The purpose of this initial notice is for a bank to determine whether an
inactive account has indeed been unclaimed, abandoned, forgotten, or left without an owner.

FACTS

Luz Bakunawa and her husband Manuel(Spouses Bakunawa) are registered owners of six (6)
parcels of land that were sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG). In 1990,Teresita Millan (Millan) offered to buy said lots and made a downpayment of
₱1,019,514.29. However, Millan was not able to clear the preliminary obstacles. As a result, the
Spouses Bakunawa rescinded the sale and offered to return to Millan her downpayment,but Millan
refused to accept it back. Consequently, the Spouses Bakunawa, through their company, the Hi-Tri
Development Corporation (Hi-Tri) took out a Manager’s Check from RCBC-Ermita in the amount of
₱ 1,019,514.29, payable to Millan’s company Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation (Rosmil)
and used this as one of their basis for a complaint against Millan filed with the Regional Trial Court

276
**Case Title:** BSB Group, Inc. v.
Sally Go a.k.a. Sally Go-Bangayan
**Parties:**
- Petitioner: BSB Group, Inc., represented by its
President, Mr. Ricardo Bangayan
- Respondent: Sally Go a.k.a. Sally Go-Bangayan
**Nature of the Case:** Petition for Review under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
**Doctrine of the Case:** The absolutely
confidential nature of bank deposits is protected
by law, and any inquiry into bank accounts must
be based on a valid exception, with doubts
resolved in favor of maintaining the confidentiality
of bank deposits.
**Cause of Action:** Qualified theft, with
allegations of stealing cash money from BSB
Group of Companies represented by Ricardo
Bangayan.
**Pertinent Facts:**
- Sally Go was employed as a cashier by BSB
Group, Inc.
- She was accused of stealing checks issued by
customers of the company, endorsing them, and
depositing the funds into her personal account
with Security Bank.
- The prosecution sought to present evidence
related to the Security Bank account.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress
this evidence.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's
decision.
**Where the Case Was Filed:** Regional Trial
Court of Manila, Branch 36
**Case Filed Before the Lower Court:** Criminal
Case No. 02-202158 for qualified theft
**Decision of the Lower Court (RTC):** The RTC
denied the motion to suppress the evidence
related to the Security Bank account. The trial
court also denied the motion for reconsideration.
**Decision of the Court of Appeals:** The Court of
Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC's
decision, ordering the stricken testimony of the
Security Bank representative from the records.
**Case Filed Before the Supreme Court:** Petition
for Review under Rule 45.
**Contention of the Petitioner:** The evidence
related to the Security Bank account is relevant
to establish the theft of cash, and it falls under an
exception to the confidentiality of bank deposits.
**Contention of the Respondent:** The evidence
is irrelevant, and the Security Bank account is
protected by the Bank Secrecy Act (R.A. No.
1405).
**Supreme Court's Answer to Petitioner's
Contention:** The evidence is not relevant to the
case since the theft is alleged to involve cash,
and the checks deposited in the account do not
establish the theft of cash.
**Supreme Court's Answer to Respondent's
Contention:** The confidentiality of bank deposits
is protected by law, and any inquiry into bank
accounts must be based on a valid exception.
**Issues in this Case:**
- Whether the evidence related to the Security
Bank account is relevant.
- Whether the evidence violates the
confidentiality of bank deposits.
**Supreme Court's Answer to the Issues:**
- The evidence is not relevant to the case.
- The evidence violates the confidentiality of bank
deposits.
**Supreme Court's Decision:** The petition is
denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
affirmed.
**Legal Basis for the Answer of the Supreme
Court:** The answer is based on the
interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Act (R.A. No.
1405) and the principles related to the
confidentiality of bank deposits.
**Important Provisions and Jurisprudence Cited:**
- R.A. No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Act)
- Doctrine of the absolute confidentiality of bank
deposits
- Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals
- China Banking Corporation v. Ortega
- Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Co.