Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices vs. Court of Appeals, 813 SCRA 1, G.R. No.

216914
December 6, 2016

Doctrine:

This allowance to the owner of the bank account to question the bank inquiry order is granted only after issuance of
the freeze order physically seizing the subject bank account. It cannot be undertaken prior to the issuance of the
freeze order.

There is nothing in Section 11 nor the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act
(AMLA) which prohibits the owner of the bank account to ascertain from the Court of Appeals (CA), post-issuance of
the bank inquiry order ex parte, if his account is indeed the subject of an examination.

Facts:

Before the 2016 presidential election reports on the disproportionate wealth of Jejomar Binay and the rest of his
family, then a news article from Manila Times disclosed the MLC is peeking into the bank account of Binay which
includes the law office that is linked to his family.

This prompted the law office to write the Court of Appeals and inquire about the veracity of the report by asking on
whether there has been a petition filed to inquire into their bank accounts, with a warning that failure to disclose will
prompt them to act accordingly. After 24 hours upon receiving the letter the Court of Appeals denied the request on
the ground that the nature of the case is strictly confidential. Hence this special civil action has been filed alleging
grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent court for its refusal to provide a copy of the ex parte
application for bank examination filed by AMLC.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion for failure to provide information on the existence of
the application for bank examination.

Ruling:

Yes, while the bank inquiry order may be appealed after the freeze order, there is nothing in the law that prohibits
the court to inform the concerned account holder to learn about a petition filed to inquire about their bank account.

The Court said, “While no grave abuse of discretion could be ascribed on the part of the appellate court when it
explained in its letter that petitions of such nature "is strictly confidential in that when processing the same, not even
the handling staff members of the Office of the Presiding Justice know or have any knowledge who the subject bank
account holders are, as well as the bank accounts involved," it was incorrect when it declared that "under the rules,
the Office of the Presiding Justice is strictly mandated not to disclose, divulge, or communicate to anyone directly
or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the fact of the filing of any petition brought before [the Court of
Appeals] by the Anti-Money Laundering Council, its contents and even its entry in the logbook." As a result, the
appellate court effectively precluded and prevented SPCMB of any recourse, amounting to a denial of SPCMB's letter
request.

We cannot overemphasize that SPCMB, as the owner of the bank account which may be the subject of inquiry of the
AMLC, ought to have a legal remedy to question the validity and propriety of such an order by the appellate court
under Section 11 of the AMLA even if subsequent to the issuance of a freeze order. Moreover, given the scope of
inquiry of the AMLC, reaching and including even related accounts, which inquiry into specifies a proviso that: "[t]hat
the procedure for the ex-parte application of the ex-parte court order for the principal account shall be the same
with that of the related accounts," SPCMB should be allowed to question the government intrusion. Plainly, by
implication, SPCMB can demonstrate the absence of probable cause, i.e. that it is not a related account nor are its
accounts materially linked to the principal account being investigated”