QR Link

Title
Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines

Case Ponente Decision Date

G.R. No. 94723 TORRES, JR., Aug 21, 1997
J

A court rules that it has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint !led

against a defendant for damages arising from the rape and
kidnapping of a minor, and that the exemption of foreign
currency deposits should not apply to the defendant, a foreign
transient, in order to prevent injustice to the citizen plainti"s.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94723)

Facts:

The case of Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines involves a

complaint !led by the petitioners, Karen Salvacion, a minor, and her
parents, against the respondent, Greg Bartelli. The incident occurred
when Bartelli, an American tourist, coaxed and lured Karen to go
with him to his apartment, where he detained and raped her for four
days. After Karen was rescued, Bartelli was arrested and detained at
the Makati Municipal Jail. Criminal charges were !led against him,
as well as a civil case for damages.
:
 The trial court granted the petitioners' motion for a writ of
preliminary attachment, and the China Banking Corporation was
served with a Notice of Garnishment to satisfy the judgment.
However, the bank refused to honor the notice, citing Section 113 of
Central Bank Circular No. 960, which exempts foreign currency
deposits from attachment or garnishment.

Issue:

The main issue raised in the case is whether Section 113 of Central
Bank Circular No. 960, which exempts foreign currency deposits
from attachment or garnishment, should apply to Bartelli, a foreign
transient.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that they
deserved the damages awarded to them by the trial court. Although
the Supreme Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a
petition for declaratory relief, it can be treated as a petition for
mandamus when it has far-reaching implications and raises
important questions.

Ratio:

The Court argued that if the exemption in Section 113 applied to a

foreign transient like Bartelli, it would result in injustice to the
citizen plainti"s and negate the principle of right and justice
prevailing in the interpretation and application of laws. Therefore,
the Court held that the provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank
Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246, insofar as it amends Section 8 of
R.A. No. 6426, are inapplicable to this case due to its peculiar
circumstances. The respondents, including China Banking
Corporation, were required to comply with the writ of execution and
release Bartelli's dollar deposits to satisfy the judgment.
:
: