7/28/2019 spcl 2

1/4

G.R. No. 135882June 27, 2001

MARQUEZ VS. DESIERTO

FACTS:

Petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto toproduce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to

various accounts maintained at Union Bank of thePhilippines, Julia Vargas Branch,

where she is the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected were involvedin a

case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau

(FFIB) v. AmadoLagdameo, et al.

The basis of the Ombudsman ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts is a

trail managers checkspurchased by one George Trivinio, a respondent in OMB-097-

0411, pending with the office of the Ombudsmanby virtue of its power to

investigate and to require the production and inspection of records and

documentsgranted to it by RA No.6770.

The Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank

documents relative to accounts inissue in line of her persistent refusal to comply

with Ombudsman's order which they sais as an unjustified, andis merely intended to

delay the investigation of the case; constitutes disobedience of or resistance to a

lawfulorder issued by this office punishable as Indirect under R.A. 6770.

Petitioner together with Union Bank of the Philippines filed a petition for declaratory

relief, prohibition and injunctions with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, against

the Ombudsman.

The lower court denied petitioner's petition.

On August 21, 1998, petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for

contempt, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by Agapito B. Rosales, Director,

Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB).

Petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an opposition to the motion to cite her in

contempt on the ground thatcompliance with the Ombudsmans orders would be in

violation of RA. No. 1405.But petitioners motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an

exception to the law onsecrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405)

HELD:

7/28/2019 spcl 2

2/4

The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera inspection the subject

accounts with the Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, is based on a

pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo,

et. al. for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture

Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI.

We rule that before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a

pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be

clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case

before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the

accountholder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such

inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.

In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent

authority. Whats existing is an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. In

short, what the office of the ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional

evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et. al., with the Sandiganbayan.Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the

bank account for inspection. Zone of privacy are recognized and protected in our

laws. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law,

the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and the Intellectual Property Code `

7/28/2019 spcl 2

3/4

Salvacion v. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997)

FACTS:

-Greg Bartelli, an American tourist coaxed and lured Karen Salvacion, 12 years old

to go with him to his apartment and raped her there for several times.-However,

Bartelli was able to escape from jail and avoid punishment.-The criminal cases were

archived pending the arrest of Bartelli.-On the other hand, Karen received a

favorable judgment in the civil case for damage-After the decision of the trial court

become final, Karen tried to execute on Bartellis dollar account with China Banking

Corporation.-Accordingly, the sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment on China

Banking.-China Banking invoked Section 113 of CB Circular 960 to the effect

that the dollar deposits of Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any

other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any

administrative body whatsoever.-Upon inquiry with CB on whether Sec 113 of CB

Circular 960 has any exception, CB responded that the provisions ABSOLUTE, the

purpose being to encourage dollar accounts within the countrys banking system

which would help in the development of the economy and that there is no intention

to render futile the basic rights of a person, but it is the law though the law maybeharsh as some perceive it. Compliance is still enjoined.-Hence, this petition for

declaratory relief.

ISSUE:

-Whether or not the peculiar circumstances of the case warrants the execution on

the foreign currency account despite the exemption from court processes under RA

6426.

HELD:

-The provisions of Sec 113 of CB circular 960 and PD 1246, in so far as it amendsSection 8 of RA 6426 are inapplicable to this case because of its peculiar

circumstances. CBC is required to comply with the writ of execution and release to

Karen the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount would satisfy the judgment.

-Provisions of The application of the law depend on the extent of

its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank

Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order

7/28/2019 spcl 2

4/4

or process of any court. Legislative body, government agency or any administrative

body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result

especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. This

would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt

in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body

intended right and justice to prevail .Ninguno non deue enriquecersetortizerzmente con damo de otro. Simply stated, when the statute is silent

or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the

vehement urge of conscience.

-It is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at a time when

the countrys economy was in a shambles; when foreign investments were minimal

and presumably, this was the reason why said statute was enacted. But the realities

of the present times show that the country has recovered economically; and even if

not, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being

unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the questioned law may be good

when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outrightinjustice and inequality such as as the case before us.-It would be unthinkable, that

the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank No. 960 would be used as a device by

accused Greg Bartelli for wrongdoing, and in so doing, acquitting the guilty at the

expense of the innocent.-Call it what it may but is there no conflict of legal policy

here? Dollar against Peso? Upholding the final and executory judgment of the

lower court against the Central Bank Circular protecting the foreign

depositor? Shielding or protecting the dollar deposit of a transient alien depositor

against injustice to a national and victim of a crime? This situation calls for fairness

against legal tyranny