Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    GSIS Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Earlcen Minorca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    GSIS Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Earlcen Minorca
    34 views2 pages

    Original Title

    GSIS vs Court of Appeals.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    34 views2 pages

    GSIS Vs Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Earlcen Minorca

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    GSIS vs Court of Appeals

    1. The contractual relationship between them is that DOMSAT was the principal in the suretyship. GSIS
    acts as a guarantor of the surety that has been executed. Westmont Bank is the bank where the money
    of DOMSAT was deposited. DOMSAT was unable to pay the said loan, GSIS refused to comply with its
    obligation reasoning that DOMSAT did not use the loan proceeds for the payment of rental for the
    satellite. GSIS then requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to the custodian of records of
    Westmont Bank to produce the following documents.

    2. The RTC allowed the subpoena for the reason that it is one of the exceptions in the general rule of
    absolute confidentiality of bank deposits, it provides that that in cases where the money deposited or
    invested is the subject matter of the litigation it is exempted from the absolute confidentiality of bank
    deposits.

    3. The subpoena was quashed for the reason both laws RA 1405 and RA 6426 both support the
    confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between them. RA 1405 covers all bank deposits in
    the Philippines and no distinction was made between domestic and foreign deposits while RA 6426 was
    intended to encourage deposits from foreign lenders and investors. The general law will not not nullify a
    specific of special law. So RA 6426 applies in this case. Without the consent or written permission from
    DOMSAT, Westmont Bank cannot be legally compelled to disclose the bank deposits of Domsat.

    Subido vs. CA

    1. The accounts subject to inquiry were the bank accounts of the Binays, their corporations, and a law
    office where a family member was once a partner.

    2. The predicate crime is the questionable massive wealth of the Binay Family in connection of them
    being a public official, including the participation of the Subido Firm in such transactions.

    3. Bank inquiry order can only be acquired through an order of a competent court such as the Court of
    Appeals while freeze order can be obtained through the AMLC. Freeze orders requires ex parte judicial
    procedure while in a bank inquiry order it does not explicity provides an ex parte judicial procedure.

    4. No it does not violate substantial due process. In a bank inquiry order under Section 11 does not
    necessitate any form of physical seizure of property of the account holder. What the bank inquiry order
    authorizes is the examination of the particular deposits or investments in banking institutions or non-
    bank financial institutions. The monetary instruments or property deposited with such banks or financial
    institutions are not seized in a physical sense, but are examined on particular details such as the account
    holder's record of deposits and transactions. In the case at hand, the inquiry into certain bank deposits
    and investments by the AMLC still does not contemplate any form of physical seizure of the targeted
    corporeal property.
    5. No it does not infringe the right to privacy for the reason that it provides safeguards before a bank
    inquiry order is issued, ensuring adherence to the general state policy of preserving the absolutely
    confidential nature of Philippine bank accounts.

    You might also like