Case 1:

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

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR.,
MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., in their capacity as Chairman and Members
of the Panel, respectively, respondents.

Facts:
Lourdes Marquez, the petitioner, received a letter from the Ombudsman asking her to process all the
banking documents required for a confidential check regarding bank accounts held at Union Bank of the
Philippines, where Marquez was the branch manager. The Plaintiff accepted the Ombudsman's request for a
camera linked to bank accounts related to a case pending the Ombudsman. However, Marquez later wrote to
the ombudsman that she could not comply and asked for an extension to respond to the camera inspection
order because suspicious accounts could not be easily identified. In addition, Marquez also said the accounts
are inactive. Therefore, the number given by the Mediator is not included in the new UB system; Therefore,
verification from the archives of the interbank register is required. The inspector responded to Marquez's
request, ordering the petitioner to handle all the necessary paperwork for the accounts in question, saying that
if Marquez refused the order, he would be punished. under the law, especially indirect contempt.
Marquez received a copy of the contempt move. Marquez filed an objection to the ombudsman saying it
was premature due to ongoing litigation in lower court. Furthermore, Marquez explained that she had no
intention of disobeying the inspector's orders. However, she wants to comply without breaking any laws,
especially RA 1405.

Issue:
Whether or not the inspection order to check suspect accounts is allowed as an exception to the Bank Secrecy
Act (RA 1405).

Held:
No. For a camera testing is allowed. The requirements are: there must be a pending case in a
competent court, the account must be identified, and the banker, including the account holder, must be notified
and present at investigation process.
In Marquez v. Desierto, no dispute has been declared pending before a competent court. The only thing
that exists is an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman's Office. In summary, there is no pending court
case that can order the opening of the inspected bank accounts.
Case 2:

G.R. No. 71479; October 18, 1990

MELLON BANK, N.A., Petitioner,

vs.
HON. CELSO L. MAGSINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch CLIX of the Regional Trial
Court at Pasig; MELCHOR JAVIER, JR., VICTORIA JAVIER; HEIRS OF HONORIO POBLADOR, JR.,
namely: Elsa Alunan Poblador, Honorio Poblador III, Rafael Poblador, Manuel Poblador, Ma. Regina
Poblador, Ma. Concepcion Poblador & Ma. Dolores Poblador; F.C. HAGEDORN & CO., INC.; DOMINGO
JHOCSON, JR.; JOSE MARQUEZ; ROBERTO GARINO; ELNOR INVESTMENT CO., INC.; PARAMOUNT
FINANCE CORPORATION; RAFAEL CABALLERO; and TRI-ARC INVESTMENT and MANAGEMENT CO.,
INC. Respondents.

Facts:
Mellon Bank inaptly transferred $1,000,000 to Javier’s account rather of just $1,000. Through the help
of other repliers, Javier allocated the quantum for himself. The supplicant filed a complaint against the repliers
Javier etal. before the Superior Court of California and the Court of First Instance in the Philippines. Regional
Trial Court dismissed the case. also, Mellon Bank also filed an instant solicitation for certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not R.A 1405 known as Bank Secrecy Law prohibits the disclosure of a deposit account.

Held:
No. Republic Act 1405, known as Bank Secrecy Law, allows the exposure of deposits in cases where
the deposited plutocrat is material for any action. In this case, the end of Mellon Bank is
to recover the redundant quantum in which Javier’s converted them for their benefit.