REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON. ANTONIO M.

The Manila RTC issued an Order staying the enforcement

EUGENIO, JR. G.R. No. 174629 February 14, 2008 of its bank inquiry order and giving the Republic five (5) days
FACTS to respond to Alvarez’s motion.
A series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA
3 contracts to PIATCO were undertaken by the Ombudsman and The Republic filed an Omnibus Motion for
the Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of Anti-Money Reconsideration and sought to strike out Alvarez’s motion.
Laundering Council (AMLC).
Alvarez filed a Reply and Motion to Dismiss the
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) requested the application for bank inquiry order.
AMLC’s assistance in obtaining more evidence to completely
reveal the financial trail of corruption surrounding the project, The Manila RTC granted the Republic’s Motion for
and also noted that Republic of the Philippines was presently Reconsideration, denying Alvarez’s motion to dismiss and
defending itself in two international arbitration cases filed in reinstating "in full force and effect" the Inquiry Order.
relation to the NAIA 3 Project. The CIS conducted an intelligence
database search on the financial transactions of certain individuals Alvarez sought that the Republic be refrained from enforcing
involved in the award, including Pantaleon Alvarez (Alvarez) the omnibus order in the meantime. Acting on this motion, the
who had been the Chairman of the PBAC Technical Committee, Manila RTC required the OSG to file a comment/opposition
NAIA-IPT3 Project. By this time, Alvarez had already been and reminded the parties that judgments and orders become
charged by the Ombudsman with violation of Section 3(j) of R.A. final and executory upon the expiration of fifteen (15) days
No. 3019. The search revealed that Alvarez maintained eight (8) from receipt thereof, as it is the period within which a motion for
bank accounts with six (6) different banks. reconsideration could be filed.

The Council resolved to authorize the Executive Director of Alvarez filed his Motion for Reconsideration of the
the AMLC to sign and verify an application to inquire into and/or omnibus order but the motion was denied by the Manila RTC.
examine the deposits or investments of Pantaleon Alvarez,
Wilfredo Trinidad, Alfredo Liongson, and Cheng Yong, and Alvarez manifested having received reliable information that
their related web of accounts wherever these may be found and to the AMLC was about to implement the Manila RTC bank inquiry
authorize the AMLC Secretariat to conduct an inquiry into subject order even though he was intending to appeal from it. On the
accounts once the RTC grants the application to inquire into and/or premise that only a final and executory judgment or order could be
examine the bank accounts of those four individuals. executed or implemented, Alvarez sought that the AMLC be
immediately ordered to refrain from enforcing the Manila
The AMLC then filed an application to inquire into or RTC bank inquiry order.
examine the deposits or investments of Alvarez, Trinidad,
Liongson and Cheng Yong before the RTC of Makati. The trial The Manila RTC directed the AMLC to refrain from
court being satisfied that there existed probable cause to believe enforcing the order until the expiration of the period to appeal, on
that the deposits in various bank accounts are related to the offense the same day, Alvarez filed a Notice of Appeal with the Manila
of violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act subject of RTC.
criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan. The CIS
proceeded to inquire and examine the deposits, investments Alvarez filed an Urgent Ex Parte Motion for Clarification
and related web accounts of the four. alleging that the AMLC had begun to inquire into the bank
accounts of the other persons mentioned in the application for bank
After a request by the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the inquiry order filed by the Republic. Considering that the Manila
Ombudsman, Dennis Villa-Ignacio to investigate the accounts of RTC bank inquiry order was issued ex parte, without notice to
Alvarez, PIATCO, and several other entities involved in the those other persons, Alvarez prayed that the AMLC be ordered to
nullified contract, the AMLC authorized the executive director refrain from inquiring into any of the other bank deposits and
of the AMLC to inquire into and examine the accounts named alleged web of accounts enumerated in AMLC’s application with
in the letter, including one maintained by Alvarez with DBS Bank the RTC; and that the AMLC be directed to refrain from using,
and two other accounts in the name of Cheng Yong with disclosing or publishing in any proceeding or venue any
Metrobank. information or document obtained in violation of the 11 May 2006
RTC Order.
The Republic, through the AMLC, filed an application before
the Manila RTC to inquire into and/or examine thirteen (13) ISSUE
accounts and two (2) related web of accounts alleged as having Is there a right to privacy governing bank accounts in the PH?
been used to facilitate corruption in the NAIA 3 Project.
Among said accounts were the DBS Bank account of Alvarez RULING
and the Metrobank accounts of Cheng Yong. Yes. The source of such right is statutory, expressed as it is in
R.A. No. 1405 otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955.
The Manila RTC granted the inquiry order finding the The right to privacy is enshrined in Section 2 of that law, to wit:
allegations in said application to be impressed with merit, and in
conformity with law and rules. Authority was thus granted to the SECTION 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or
AMLC to inquire into the bank accounts listed therein. banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in
bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
Alvarez filed an Urgent Motion to Stay Enforcement of subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of
Order alleging that he fortuitously learned of the bank inquiry an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
order, which was issued following an ex parte application, and inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau
he argued that nothing in R.A. No. 9160 authorized the AMLC or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in
to seek the authority to inquire into bank accounts ex parte. 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 the
litigation.
 with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence
Because of the Bank Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of bank Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et al.
deposits remains a basic state policy in the Philippines.
Subsequent laws, including the AMLA, may have added The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera
exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act, yet the secrecy of bank inspection of the accounts is a trail managers checks purchased by
deposits still lies as the general rule. It falls within the zones of George Trivinio, a respondent in a case pending with the office of
privacy recognized by our laws. The framers of the 1987 the Ombudsman.
Constitution likewise recognized that bank accounts are not
covered by either the right to information or under the Mr. George Trivinio purchased fifty one (51) Managers
requirement of full public disclosure. Unless the Bank Secrecy Checks (MCs) for a total amount of P272.1 Million at Traders
Act is repealed or amended, the legal order is obliged to conserve Royal Bank, United Nations Avenue branch. Out of the 51 MCs,
the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine bank deposits. eleven (11) MCs in the amount of P70.6 million, were deposited
and credited to an account maintained at the Union Bank,
Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be Julia Vargas Branch.
specifically legislated. Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act itself
prescribes exceptions whereby these bank accounts may be The FFIB panel met in conference with Lourdes T. Marquez
examined by "any person, government official, bureau or office"; and Atty. Fe B. Macalino for the purpose of allowing Marquez and
namely when: (1) upon written permission of the depositor; (2) in Atty. Macalino to view the checks furnished by Traders Royal
cases of impeachment; (3) the examination of bank accounts is Bank. After convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks,
upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or Atty. Macalino advised Marquez to comply with the order of
dereliction of duty of public officials; and (4) the money the Ombudsman. Marquez agreed to an in camera inspection
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. set on June 3, 1998.

Section 8 of R.A. Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt However, Marquez soon wrote the Ombudsman explaining to
Practices Act, has been recognized by this Court as constituting an him that the accounts in question cannot readily be identified
additional exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality, and and asked for time to respond to the order. She claimed that
there have been other similar recognitions as well. “despite diligent efforts and from the accounts numbers presented,
we cannot identify the accounts since the checks are issued in
The AMLA also provides exceptions to the Bank Secrecy cash or bearer. We surmised that the accounts have long been
Act. Under Section 11, the AMLC may inquire into a bank account dormant, hence are not covered by the new account number
upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of the generated by the Union Bank system. We therefore have to
AMLA, it having been established that there is probable cause that verify from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of
the deposits or investments are related to unlawful activities as these accounts.”
defined in Section 3(i) of the law, or a money laundering offense
under Section 4 thereof. Marquez persistently refused to comply with the order of the
Ombudsman, which cited her for contempt.
It cannot be successfully argued the proceedings relating to
the bank inquiry order under Section 11 of the AMLA is a ISSUE
"litigation" encompassed in one of the exceptions to the Bank Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera
Secrecy Act which is when "the money deposited or invested is the inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to
subject matter of the litigation." The orientation of the bank inquiry the law on secrecy of bank deposits
order is simply to serve as a provisional relief or remedy. As
earlier stated, the application for such does not entail a full-blown RULING
trial. No. An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law
(R.A. No.1405) would reveal the following exceptions:
Indeed, by force of statute, all bank deposits are absolutely 1. Where the depositor consents in writing;
confidential, and that nature is unaltered even by the legislated 2. Impeachment case;
exceptions referred to above. There is disfavor towards 3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases
construing these exceptions in such a manner that would authorize against public officials;
unlimited discretion on the part of the government or of any party 4. Deposit is subject of litigation;
seeking to enforce those exceptions and inquire into bank deposits. 5. Sec. 8, R.A. No.3019, in cases of unexplained wealth

Doubts must be resolved in favor of upholding the The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera
absolutely confidential nature of bank deposits. Such a stance inspection the subject accounts is based on a pending
would persist unless Congress passes a law reversing the general investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado
state policy of preserving the absolutely confidential nature of Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g)
Philippine bank accounts. relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates
Authority and AMARI.

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must
Manager, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction.
HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO G.R. No. 135882 June Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection
27, 2001 limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of
FACTS competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder
Lourdes Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such
Aniano A. Desierto dated April 29, 1998, to produce several bank inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending
documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various case.
accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia
Vargas Branch, where Marquez is the branch manager. The
accounts to be inspected are accounts involved in a case pending
 Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign
amended, declares bank deposits to be absolutely confidential Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (RA 6426). This law
except: establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency
(1) In an examination made in the course of a special or deposits.
general examination of a bank that is specifically
authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank
fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being
committed and that it is necessary to look into the CHINA BANKING CORPORATION vs. THE HONORABLE
deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE "JOSEPH" GOTIANUY.
(2) In an examination made by an independent auditor G.R. No. 140687 December 18, 2006
hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided Facts
that the examination is for audit purposes only and the Jose “Joseph” Gotianuy filed a Complaint for recovery of
results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the sums of money and annulment of sales of real properties and
bank, shares of stock against his son-in-law, George Dee, and his
(3) Upon written permission of the depositor, daughter, Mary Margaret Dee, before the Regional Trial Court
(4) In cases of impeachment, (RTC) of Cebu City. Jose Gotianuy accused his daughter of
(5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or stealing, among his other properties, US dollar deposits with
dereliction of duty of public officials, or Citibank N.A. amounting to not less than P35,000,000.00 and
(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the US$864,000.00. Mary Margaret Dee received these amounts from
subject matter of the litigation. Citibank N.A. through checks which she allegedly deposited at
China Banking Corporation (China Bank). He likewise accused
In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before his son-in-law of transferring his real properties and shares of
any court of competent authority. What is existing is an stock in George Dee’s name without any consideration.
investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the
office of the ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for Jose Gotianuy died during the pendency of the case before
additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et. the trial court.1 He was substituted by his daughter, Elizabeth
al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case Gotianuy Lo. The latter presented the US Dollar checks withdrawn
in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account by Mary Margaret Dee from Jose’s US dollar placement with
for inspection. Citibank

Issue
Whether or not the subpoena issued by the court violates PD No.
1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977

Philippine Savings Bank vs. Senate lmpeachment Court, GR Ruling

No. 200238 As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and which are
indisputably now deposited with China Bank, Jose Gotianuy had
Facts the right to inquire into the said deposits.
Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank) and its President, Pascual
M. Garcia III, filed before the Supreme Court an original civil A depositor, in cases of bank deposits, is one who pays
action for certiorari and prohibition with application for temporary money into the bank in the usual course of business, to be placed to
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The TRO his credit and subject to his check or the beneficiary of the funds
was sought to stop the Senate, sitting as impeachment court, from held by the bank as trustee. Furthermore, it is indubitable that the
further implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Citibank checks were drawn against the foreign currency account
Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, that it issued against the Branch with Citibank, NA. The monies subject of said checks originally
Manager of PS Bank, Katipunan Branch. The subpoena assailed by came from Gotianuy, the owner of the account. Thus, he also has
PSB covers the foreign currency denominated accounts allegedly legal rights and interests in the CBC account where said
owned by the impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona of the monies were deposited. More importantly, the Citibank checks
Philippine Supreme Court. readily demonstrate that the late Jose Gotianuy is one of the payees
of said checks. Being a co-payee thereof, he or his estate can be
Issue considered as a co-depositor of said checks. Since the late Jose
Should a TRO be issued against the impeachment court to Gotianuy is a co-depositor of the CBC account, then his request
enjoin it from further implementing the subpoena with respect to for the assailed subpoena is tantamount to an express
the alleged foreign currency denominated accounts of CJ Corona? permission of a depositor for the disclosure of the name of the
account holder.
Ruling
Yes, a TRO should be issued against the impeachment court The law provides that all foreign currency deposits
to enjoin it from further implementing the subpoena with respect to authorized under Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by Sec. 8,
the alleged foreign currency denominated accounts of CJ Corona. Presidential Decree No. 1246, Presidential Decree No. 1035, as
well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential
There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a Decree No. 1034 are considered absolutely confidential in
preliminary injunction: nature and may not be inquired into. There is only one
(1) the right to be protected exists prima facie, and exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is,
(2) the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. disclosure is allowed upon the written permission of the
It must be proven that the violation sought to be depositor.
prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.
The Court of Appeals, in allowing the inquiry, considered
A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign Jose Gotianuy, a co-depositor of Mary Margaret Dee. It reasoned
currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided under Section 8 that since Jose Gotianuy is the named co-payee of the latter in the
subject checks, which checks were deposited in China Bank, then,
Jose Gotianuy is likewise a depositor thereof. On that basis, no
written consent from Mary Margaret Dee is necessitated.”