7/25/2019 Integan vs CA

1/1

Intengan vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 128996. February 15, 22

Facts:

!n "epte#ber 21, 199$, C%t%ban& f%le' a (o#pla%nt for v%olat%on of se(t%on $1 %n relat%on to se(t%on 1)) of

t*e Corporat%on Co'e aga%nst t+o 2- of %ts off%(ers, ante /. "antos an' 0ar%lou Genu%no. Atta(*e' to t*e

(o#pla%nt +as an aff%'av%t ee(ute' by pr%vate respon'ent %( /%#, a v%(e3pres%'ent of C%t%ban&

As ev%'en(e, /%# annee' ban& re(or's purport%ng to establ%s* t*e 'e(ept%on pra(t%(e' by "antos an'

Genu%no. "o#e of t*e 'o(u#ents perta%ne' to t*e 'ollar 'epos%ts of pet%t%oners Car#en /l. Intengan,

Rosar%o /l. Ner%, an' R%ta 4. ra+ner.

In turn, pr%vate respon'ent oven Reyes, v%(e3pres%'ent7bus%ness #anager of t*e Global Consu#er

an&%ng Group of C%t%ban&, a'#%ts to *av%ng aut*or%e' /%# to state t*e na#es of t*e (l%ents %nvolve' an'

to atta(* t*e pert%nent ban& re(or's, %n(lu'%ng t*ose of pet%t%oners

4et%t%oners aver t*at respon'ents v%olate' RA 1)5.

Issue:

:*et*er or not Respon'ents are l%able for v%olat%on of "e(re(y of an& epos%ts A(t, RA 1)5.

Held:

No. ;*e a((ounts %n