Marquez vs. Desierto Case Digest G.R. No. 135882 June 27, 2001

Marquez vs. Desierto Case Digest 

G.R. No. 135882 ; June 27, 2001

DOCTRINE/S:

Banking Law

a) Bank deposits are “absolutely confidential”; Exceptions.

GR: bank deposits are “absolutely confidential” (Section 2 of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law, as amended)

Exceptions:

1. In an examination made in the course of a special or 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 deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity,

2. In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the

3. Where the depositor consents in writing;

4. Impeachment case;

5. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials;

6. Deposit is subject of litigation;

7. Sec. 8, R. A. No. 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth (PNB vs. Gancayco)

b) Requisites for an in camera inspection

1. There must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The account must be clearly identified.

3. The inspection is  limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. 

4. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection.

5.  Inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case.

c) 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.

FACTS:

SHORT VERSION: Petitioner Marquez, a Branch Manager of Union Bank. received an Order from the Ombudsman to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at said Bank.  The accounts to be inspected were involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman. Marquez agreed to an in camera inspection.  But later on, Marquez wrote the Ombudsman that he could not comply with the in camera inspection since the accounts in question could not readily be identified. Marquez asked for time to respond to the order. But the Ombudsman issued an order directing Marquez to produce the said bank documents stating that her persistent refusal to comply with the order is unjustified and is punishable as Indirect Contempt. Petitioner Marquez received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt. Petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing thereof was premature due to the petition pending in the lower court.

LONG VERSION: Petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Ato produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank where petitioner was the branch manager.  The accounts to be inspected were involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled. The Order was grounded on Section 15 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) which modifies the law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and places the office of the Ombudsman in the same footing as the courts of law in this regard.”

The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts was a trail of managers checks (MCs) purchased by one Trivinio, a respondent in the case pending with the office of the Ombudsman. It appeared that Trivinio purchased MCs at Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and 11 of MCs in were deposited and credited to an account maintained at Union Bank.

Petitioner agreed to an in camera inspection.  However, later on, Marquez wrote the Ombudsman that the accounts in question could not readily be identified since the checks were issued in cash or bearer, and asked for time to respond to the order. Marquez surmised that these accounts had long been dormant, hence were not covered by the new account number generated by the UB system, thus sought to verify from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of these accounts.

The Ombudsman, responding to the request of Marquez for time to comply with the order, stated that UBP-Julia Vargas, not Interbank, was the depositary bank of the subject TRB MCs as shown at its dorsal portion and as cleared by the Philippine Clearing House.  Notwithstanding the fact that the checks were payable to cash or bearer, the name of the depositor(s) could easily be identified since the account numbers where said checks were deposited were identified in the order. Even assuming that the accounts were already classified as dormant accounts, the bank was still required to preserve the records pertaining to the accounts within a certain period of time as required by existing banking rules and regulations.

The Ombudsman issued an order directing Marquez to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in issue, stating that her persistent refusal to comply with the order is unjustified and is punishable as Indirect Contempt.

Marquez together with UBP filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunction with the RTC against the Ombudsman allegedly because the Ombudsman and other persons acting under his authority were continuously harassing her to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in question. Moreover, , the Ombudsman issued another order stating that unless she appeared before the FFIB with the documents requested, Marquez would be charged with indirect contempt and obstruction of justice.

The lower court denied petitioner’s prayer for a temporary restraining order stating that since petitioner failed to show prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, no writ of injunction may be issued by the RTC to delay the investigation pursuant to Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt. Petitioner then filed with the Ombudsman an opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing thereof was premature due to the petition pending in the lower court. Petitioner likewise reiterated that she had no intention to disobey the orders of the Ombudsman. However, she wanted to be clarified as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA 1405.

ISSUE/S: WON the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405).

HELD: NO. The requisites in order for an In camera inspection to be allowd are: there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction; 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 account holder 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. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.