BSB Group Inc. vs.

Go, 16 February 2010 (purpose; checks and their deposits did not logically connect to
subject matter of litigation) the allegation of theft of cash, rendering it irrelevant.

The case involves BSB Group, Inc., represented by its Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of
president, Mr. Ricardo Bangayan, as the petitioner, the confidentiality of bank deposits as established by
and Sally Go, also known as Sally Go-Bangayan, as Republic Act No. 1405. This law protects the privacy of
the respondent. The events leading to this case began bank accounts, allowing inquiries only under specific
in 2002 whenBangayan filed a complaint for estafa circumstances, such as when the deposited money is
and/or qualified theft against his wife, Sally Go, who the subject matter of litigation. In this case, the funds in
was employed as a cashier at BSB Group, Inc. The Go's Security Bank account were not the subject of the
complaint alleged that Go had failed to turn over theft charge; thus, the inquiry into her bank account
several checks, totaling P1,534,135.50, issued by the was impermissible. The Court concluded that the trial
company's customers. Instead, she allegedly endorsed court erred in admitting the evidence, affirming the
these checks and deposited them into her personal Court of Appeals' decision to reverse the lower court's
account at Security Bank in Divisoria, Manila. The orders.
Manila Prosecutor's O"ce found sufficient evidence to
recommend filing an Information for qualified theft Dona Adela Export vs. TIDCORP, 11 February 2015
against Go, leading to her arraignment in the Regional (Waiver)
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 36.During the trial, the
prosecution sought to present evidence from The case involves Doaa Adela Export International,
SecurityBank regarding the deposits made by Go. Inc. (petitioner) as the party seeking relief against the
However, Go filed a motion to suppress this evidence, Trade and Investment Development Corporation
arguing that it was irrelevant and violated the (TIDCORP) and the Bank of the Philippine Islands
confidentiality of her bank account under Republic Act (BPI)(respondents). The events leading to the case
No. 1405, the BankSecrecy Act. The trial court denied began on August 23, 2006 ,when the petitioner filed a
her motion, leading to further motions for Petition for Voluntary Insolvency, which was assigned
reconsideration, which were also denied. Go SEC Case No. MC06-103 and raffled to the Regional
subsequently elevated the matter to the Court of Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 211.
Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which found merit On August 28, 2006, the RTC declared the petitioner
in her arguments and reversed the trial court's orders, insolvent and stayed all civil proceedings against it,
striking out the testimony of the bank representative. appointing Atty. Arlene Gonzales as the receiver.
The petitioner, BSB Group, Inc., then filed a petition for
review under Rule 45, contesting the Court of Appeals Atty. Gonzales engaged appraisers and required
Decision. creditors to submit proof of their claims. On October
22, 2010, she proposed a compromise agreement
Issue: detailing the remaining assets of the petitioner and the
1.​ Is the testimony of the Security Bank claims of its creditors, including TIDCORP and BPI.
representative and the accompanying The assets included land, buildings, sewing machines,
documentary evidence relevant to the case of and furniture, with various appraised values. On May
qualified theft against Sally Go? 26, 2011, the petitioner entered into a Dacion En Pago
2.​ Does the admission of this evidence violate by Compromise Agreement with the Technology
the confidentiality provisions of Republic Act Resource Center (TRC), agreeing to transfer a parcel
No. 1405? of land to settle its obligations. Subsequently, on
Ruling: August 11, 2011, TIDCORP and BPI filed a Joint
1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of Motion to Approve Agreement, which included terms
the Security Bank Representative and the that required the petitioner to waive its rights to
accompanying documentary evidence is confidentiality under the Law on Secrecy of Bank
irrelevant to the case of qualified theft against Deposits and the General Banking Law of 2000.
Sally Go.
2.​ The Court also held that the admission of this The RTC approved the Dacion En Pago and the Joint
evidence constitutes a violation of the Motion on November 15, 2011. The petitioner later filed
confidentiality provisions of Republic Act No. a motion for partial reconsideration, arguing that it was
1405. not a party to the compromise agreement and that the
waiver of confidentiality was invalid. The RTC denied
Ratio: this motion on May 14, 2012, leading to the present
The Supreme Court emphasized that in criminal petition for review on certiorari.
prosecutions, the elements of the offense must be
established with precision. In this case, the charge Issue:
against God was for qualified theft, which necessitates 1.​ Is the petitioner bound by the provision in the
proof that she unlawfully took cash belonging to BSB BPI-TIDCORP Joint Motion to Approve
Group, Inc. The Court noted that the prosecution's Agreement that requires it to waive its rights to
attempt to link the checks deposited in Go's account to confidentiality of its bank deposits, despite not
the alleged theft of cash was flawed. The Information being a party to the agreement?
filed against Go specifically charged her with stealing
cash, not checks. Therefore, evidence regarding the Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, 3.​ Was the detailed information in the
stating that the waiver of confidentiality provision in the prosecution's requests for subpoenas obtained
BPI-TIDCORP Joint Motion to Approve Agreement is through an illegal disclosure, thus invoking the
not binding on the petitioner since it was not a party to "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?
the agreement and did not provide express consent.
Ruling:
Ratio: 1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that Ejercito's Trust
The Court emphasized that a compromise agreement Account No. 858 is indeed covered by the
is binding only on the parties involved, as established term "deposit" as used in R.A. No. 1405.
by the doctrine of relativity of contracts. The petitioner 2.​ The Court held that both accounts are not
did not provide written consent to waive the exempt from the protection of R.A. 1405 due
confidentiality of its bank deposits, as required by the to the exceptions provided in the law.
Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. No.1405). The 3.​ The Court found that the "fruit of the poisonous
Court noted that mere silence or acquiescence by the tree" doctrine does not apply in this case, as
petitioner during the proceedings does not equate to a the information was not obtained illegally.
waiver of rights, as waivers must be clearly
demonstrated and cannot be presumed. Furthermore, Ratio:
the Court highlighted that the receiver, Atty. Gonzales, The Supreme Court reasoned that the term "deposit"
did not approve the waiver of confidentiality in the Joint in R.A. No. 1405 should be interpreted broadly to
Motion, which further invalidated the provision. The include trust accounts, as the law aims to encourage
Court concluded that the waiver lacked the necessary public trust in banking institutions. The policy behind
consent and approval, thus ruling that the petitioner is the law is to protect deposits of all kinds to promote
not bound by the confidentiality waiver in the economic development. The Court also noted that the
agreement between TIDCORP and BPI. exceptions to the confidentiality of bank deposits apply
in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty, which are
Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 30 November 2006 analogous to plunder cases, as both involve public
(Trust Account) trust and accountability.

The case involves Joseph Victor G. Ejercito (petitioner) Furthermore, the Court clarified that the "fruit of the
against the Sandiganbayan (Special Division) and the poisonous tree" doctrine, which excludes evidence
People of the Philippines (respondents). The events obtained through illegal means, does not apply here
leading to this case began when the Special because the information was lawfully obtained through
Prosecution Panel filed a request on January 20, 2003, prior investigations conducted by the Ombudsman.
for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum/ad The Ombudsman had acted
testificandum concerning bank accounts associated within its authority, and the subpoenas issued by the
with Ejercito in relation to Criminal Case No. 26558, Sandiganbayan were justified under the exceptions to
"People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ejercito Estrada, the bank secrecy law. Thus, the Court upheld the
et al.," which involved allegations of plunder under Sandiganbayan's resolutions, allowing the subpoenas
Republic Act No. 7080. The subpoenas sought to stand.
documents from the Export and Industry Bank (EIB)
and Equitable-PCI Bank, including detailed account People vs. Estrada, 2 April 2009 (Trust Account)
information and transaction records related to
Ejercito's Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account The case involves the People of the Philippines as the
No. 0116-17345-9. petitioner and Joseph Ejercito Estrada as the
respondent. The events leading to this case began on
On January 27, 2003, Ejercito, having learned about April 4, 2001, when an Information for plunder was
the subpoenas through media reports, attended a filed against Estrada and others with the
hearing and expressed concerns regarding the legality Sandiganbayan, which was docketed as Crim. Case
of the subpoenas, citing the Secrecy of Bank Deposits No. 26558. Alongside this, a separate Information for
Law (R.A. No. 1405). He filed a motion to quash the illegal use of alias was filed against Estrada, recorded
subpoenas on January 28, 2003, arguing that the as Crim. Case No. 26565. The Amended Information
information requested could only have been obtained in Crim. Case No. 26565 alleged that on or about
through illegal disclosure by bank officials. The February 4, 2000, in Manila, Estrada, while serving as
Sandiganbayan denied his motions on February 7 and President of the Philippines, unlawfully represented
12, 2003, and subsequently denied his motion for himself as "Jose Velarde" in various transactions to
reconsideration on March 11, 2003. Ejercito then filed conceal his ill-gotten wealth. The case was
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the consolidated with another Information for perjury,
Sandiganbayan's resolutions. docketed as Crim. Case No. 26905. Estrada was
arrested following a warrant issued by the
Issue: Sandiganbayan. The trial commenced, during which
1.​ Is Ejercito's Trust Account No. 858 covered by the prosecution presented evidence, including
the term "deposit" as defined in R.A. No. testimonies from bank officers who confirmed that
1405? Estrada opened a trust account under the alias "Jose
2.​ Are Ejercito's Trust Account No. 858 and Velarde." The defense subsequently !led a demurrer to
Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9 exempt evidence, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove
from the protection of R.A. 1405? Estrada's illegal use of alias as defined under
Commonwealth Act No. 142. On July 12, 2004, the received an order from the Ombudsman dated April
Sandiganbayan granted Estrada's demurrer, leading to 29, 1998, requiring her to produce several bank
the present petition for review on certiorari filed by the documents for in-camera inspection related to speci!c
People. accounts at the Union Bank's Julia Vargas
Branch. These accounts were involved in an ongoing
Issue: investigation entitled Fact-Finding and Intelligence
1.​ Did the Sandiganbayan err in dismissing Crim. Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et al. The
Case No. 26565 by ruling that Estrada's use of Ombudsman’s order cited the powers granted under
the alias "Jose Velarde" was not public? the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No.
2.​ Was the Sandiganbayan correct in holding that 6770, which allows the Ombudsman to investigate and
Estrada's use of the alias was permissible require the production of records.
under banking rules despite the prohibition
under Commonwealth Act No. 142? The accounts in question were linked to a series of
3.​ Did the Sandiganbayan properly apply R.A. managers' checks purchased by George Trivinio, a
No. 1405 as an exception to the illegal use of respondent in the ongoing case. After a meeting on
alias under Commonwealth Act No. 142? May 26, 1998, where Marquez and her counsel were
4.​ Was the Sandiganbayan's harmonization of shown the checks, they agreed to comply with the
R.A. No. 1405 and Commonwealth Act No. Ombudsman’s order for an inspection set for June 3,
142 appropriate? 1998. However, on June 4, Marquez requested
5.​ Did the Sandiganbayan err in limiting the additional time to comply, stating difficulties in
coverage of the amended Information to identifying the accounts due to their dormant status.
Estrada's use of the alias on February 4, The Ombudsman responded, emphasizing the bank's
2000? obligation to preserve records and reiterated the need
6.​ Did the Sandiganbayan improperly apply the for compliance. On June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman
ruling in Ursua v. Court of Appeals to this issued a directive for Marquez to produce the
case? documents, warning that her refusal could lead to
charges of indirect contempt. Subsequently, on July
Ruling: 10, 1998, Marquez, along with Union Bank, filed a
The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of petition for declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court
merit, affirming the Sandiganbayan's ruling that of Makati City, seeking clarification of her rights and
Estrada's use of the alias "Jose Velarde" did not duties under conflicting laws regarding bank secrecy.
constitute a violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142. The lower court denied her request for a temporary
restraining order, stating that the Ombudsman’s
Ratio: actions were within his jurisdiction. Marquez continued
The Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan's to contest the Ombudsman’s orders, leading to a
interpretation of the law regarding the illegal use of motion for reconsideration and further hearings.
aliases, emphasizing that for a violation to occur under Ultimately, the Ombudsman set a hearing for
Commonwealth Act No. 142, the use of an alias must September 7, 1998, to address the contempt charges
be public and habitual. The Court agreed with the against Marquez, which prompted her to !le a petition
Sandiganbayan's finding that Estrada's use of the alias to annul the Ombudsman’s orders.
was not public, as it occurred in a confidential banking
transaction with bank officers who were sworn to Issue:
secrecy. The Court noted that the presence of other 1.​ Can Lourdes T. Marquez be cited for indirect
individuals during the transaction did not equate to contempt for failing to produce the requested
public use, as these individuals were bound by documents as ordered by the Ombudsman?
confidentiality. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that 2.​ Is the Ombudsman’s order for an in-camera
the nature of the transaction—a numbered trust inspection of the bank accounts permissible as
account—was protected under R.A. No. 1405, which an exception to the law on the secrecy of bank
guarantees the confidentiality of bank deposits. The deposits (R.A. No. 1405)?
Court also clarified that the prohibition against the use
of aliases in banking transactions was not ! firmly Ruling:
established until the enactment of R.A. No. 9160, The Supreme Court granted the petition filed by
which occurred after the events in question. Thus, the Lourdes T. Marquez, ordering the Ombudsman to
Court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet the cease and desist from requiring her to comply with the
burden of proof required to establish Estrada's liability order dated October 14, 1998, and similar orders. The
under the law, affirming the Sandiganbayan's decision Court ruled that Marquez could not be cited for indirect
to dismiss the case. contempt under the circumstances presented, and the
Ombudsman’s order for in-camera inspection was not
Marquez vs. Desierto, 27 June 2001 (Ombudsman) justified as there was no pending case before a
competent court.
The case involves Lourdes T. Marquez, who served as
the Branch Manager of Union Bank of the Philippines, Ratio:
as the petitioner, and Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, in his The Court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the
capacity as Ombudsman, along with other members of law regarding the secrecy of bank deposits and the
the Ombudsman panel, as respondents. The events powers of the Ombudsman. It emphasized that for an
leading to the case began in May 1998 when Marquez in-camera inspection to be valid, there must be a
pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction, that Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 was
and the accounts must be clearly identified. The Court inapplicable to the case at hand, allowing the
noted that the Ombudsman was essentially seeking to petitioners to execute the judgment against Bartelli's
gather evidence without a formal charge or litigation, dollar deposits.
which is not permissible under the law. The ruling
highlighted the importance of protecting individual Ratio:
privacy rights and the sanctity of bank deposits, as The Court reasoned that while the original jurisdiction
enshrined in the Civil Code and various special laws. for declaratory relief lies with the lower courts,
The Court reiterated that the Ombudsman’s powers, exceptions exist when the case has significant
while extensive, do not extend to infringing upon the implications that warrant Supreme Court intervention.
rights guaranteed by the law without proper judicial In this instance, the Court recognized the severe
oversight. Thus, the petition was granted, reinforcing injustice faced by a minor victim of a heinous crime
the principle that the investigation powers of the who was denied access to her rightful damages due to
Ombudsman must be exercised within the bounds of an unreasonable law. The Court emphasized that the
existing laws and constitutional protections. protection afforded to foreign currency deposits under
Section 113 was intended for foreign investors and not
Salvacion vs. Central Bank, 21 August 1997 for transient individuals like Bartelli, who had
(Garnishment of Foreign Deposits) committed a crime against a Filipino citizen. The Court
highlighted the need for laws to evolve with societal
The case involves Karen E. Salvacion, a minor, changes and to ensure that justice prevails over
represented by her father Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., technicalities that could shield wrongdoers from
and her mother Evelina E. Salvacion as petitioners accountability. Thus, the Court declared that the
against the Central Bank of the Philippines, China provisions of Section 113 were not applicable in this
Banking Corporation, and Greg Bartelli y Northcott as case, allowing the petitioners to execute the judgment
respondents. The events leading to this case began on and receive the damages awarded to them.
February 4, 1989, when Greg Bartelli, an American
tourist, lured 12- year-old Karen to his apartment under China Bank vs. CA, 18 December 2006 (Inquiry Into
false pretenses. He detained her for four days, during Bank Deposit)
which he raped her multiple times. On February 7,
1989, Karen was rescued by the police, and Bartelli The case involves China Banking Corporation
was arrested. The police recovered several items from (Petitioner) and the Honorable Court of Appeals and
Bartelli, including a dollar check and bank books. Jose "Joseph" Gotianuy, who was substituted by
Subsequently, criminal charges were filed against him Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo (Respondents). The events
for serious illegal detention and multiple counts of leading to the case began when Jose Gotianuy "led a
rape. complaint for recovery of sums of money and
annulment of sales of real properties and shares of
On February 16, 1989, while the criminal cases were stock against his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee, and
ongoing, the petitioners filed a civil case for damages his son-in-law, George Dee, before the Regional Trial
against Bartelli in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 58. The complaint,
seeking a writ of preliminary attachment to secure their docketed
claim. The court granted the attachment, and a writ as CEB-21445, alleged that Mary Margaret Dee had
was issued on February 28, 1989. However, when the stolen significant amounts of money from him,
Deputy Sheri" served a notice of garnishment to China specifically US dollar deposits with Citibank N.A.
Banking Corporation regarding Bartelli's dollar totaling not less than P35,000,000.00 and
deposits, the bank invoked Section 113 of Central US$864,000.00. It was claimed that Mary Margaret
Bank Circular No. 960, which exempted foreign received these funds through checks deposited at
currency deposits from attachment or garnishment. China Banking Corporation. Additionally, Jose accused
This led the petitioners to seek declaratory relief from George Dee of transferring his properties and shares
the Supreme Court, arguing that the provision was of stock into his name without any consideration.
unconstitutional as it violated their rights to due During the proceedings, Jose Gotianuy passed away,
process and equal protection under the law. and Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo took over as the substituted
party. Elizabeth presented evidence, including US
Issue: dollar checks withdrawn by Mary Margaret from
1.​ Can the Supreme Court entertain the petition Citibank, to support the claims. The trial court issued
for declaratory relief despite original subpoenas for employees of China Bank to testify
jurisdiction resting with the lower court? regarding the checks and the deposits. China Bank
2.​ Is Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. "led a motion for reconsideration against the trial
960 applicable to a foreign transient like Greg court's order, which was partially granted, allowing the
Bartelli, thereby exempting his dollar deposits bank employees to testify only about the names
from attachment or garnishment? associated with the foreign currency funds. China
Bank subsequently "led a Petition for Certiorari with
Ruling: the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition and
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition for upheld the trial court's order. The case was then
declaratory relief could be treated as a petition for elevated to the Supreme Court.
mandamus, requiring the respondents to comply with
the writ of execution in the civil case. The Court held Issue:
 1.​ Did the Court of Appeals misinterpret Section agent for Honorio Poblador, Jr., the property owner.
8 of R.A. 6426, as amended, regarding the The payment for the property was made through
confidentiality of foreign currency deposits? several cashier's checks and cash, with the funds
2.​ Can Jose Gotianuy, as a co-payee of the being funneled through various companies linked to
checks, invoke the court's aid to compel the Poblador. On July 29, 1977, Mellon Bank filed a
disclosure of the foreign currency deposits? complaint in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against
3.​ Is China Bank entitled to invoke the provisions the Javiers and other parties, seeking to recover the
of Section 8 of R.A. 6426 on behalf of the mistakenly transferred funds and impose a
foreign currency depositor? constructive trust on the property purchased with those
funds. The case was complicated by the fact that a
Ruling: similar action was filed in California to recover the
The Supreme Court denied the petition of China Bank, property itself. The lower court, presided by Judge
affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals which Eficio Acosta, later ruled on the issue of "election of
upheld the trial court's order allowing the inquiry into remedies," determining that the filing of the California
the foreign currency deposits. The Court ruled that case precluded the recovery of the purchase price in
Jose Gotianuy, as a co-payee of the checks, had the the Philippine jurisdiction. This ruling was
right to seek disclosure of the deposits, and that the contested by Mellon Bank, leading to the present
confidentiality provisions of the law did not preclude petition for certiorari.
such inquiry.
Issue:
Ratio: 1.​ Does the principle of election of remedies bar
The Supreme Court reasoned that the confidentiality of Mellon Bank from pursuing an action to
foreign currency deposits, as stipulated in Section 8 of recover the purchase price of the real property
R.A. 6426, is not absolute and allows for exceptions, in the Philippines after filing a similar action in
particularly when the depositor's rights are at stake. California to recover the property itself?
The Court emphasized that Jose Gotianuy, being a
co-payee on the Citibank checks, had a legitimate Ruling:
interest in the funds deposited at China Bank. The The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mellon Bank,
Court noted that the checks were drawn against a annulling the lower court's resolution and orders that
foreign currency account and that the funds originally had barred the recovery of the purchase price.
belonged to Jose, thus establishing his right to inquire ThebCourt held that the lower court had gravely
about the deposits. The Court also highlighted that the abused its discretion in applying
legislative intent behind the confidentiality law was not the doctrine of election of remedies in this case.
to perpetuate injustice but to protect legitimate
depositors. Therefore, allowing the inquiry was Ratio:
consistent with principles of fairness and justice, The Supreme Court's decision emphasized that the
ensuring that the rights of the rightful owner of the principle of election of remedies is not applicable in
funds were upheld. The Court concluded that the trial this instance as the remedies sought by Mellon Bank
court's order for disclosure was justified under the in the California case and the Philippine case were not
unique circumstances of the case, reinforcing the inconsistent. The Court clarified that the election of
notion that the law should not be used as a shield for remedies doctrine is intended to prevent double
wrongdoing. recovery for a single wrong, but in this case, the
actions were based on distinct causes of action arising
Mellon Bank vs. Magsino, 18 October 1990 from the same set of facts. The Court noted that the
(Subject Matter of Litigation) remedies pursued in both jurisdictions were alternative
rather than repugnant, as they involved different
The case involves Mellon Bank, N.A. as the petitioner parties and distinct claims.
and several respondents including Hon. Celso L.
Magsino, Melchor Javier, Jr., Victoria Javier, and the Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the lower
heirs of Honorio Poblador, Jr., among others. The court's ruling was interlocutory and did not constitute a
events leading to the case began on May 27, 1977, final disposition of the case, thus allowing for the
when Dolores Ventosa requested a transfer of $1,000 possibility of pursuing both remedies. The Court also
from the First National Bank of Moundsville, West pointed out that the lower court's reliance on
Virginia, to Victoria Javier in Manila through Prudential procedural technicalities over substantive rights
Bank. However, due to a clerical error, the amount undermined the fair administration of justice. The ruling
transferred was recorded as $1,000,000 instead of underscored the importance of allowing a thorough
the intended $1,000. Consequently, Manufacturers examination of the claims and evidence, particularly
Hanover Bank transferred $999,993.70 to Prudential given the serious allegations of misconduct
Bank for Victoria Javier's account. Upon receiving the surrounding the misappropriation of funds.
funds, the Javiers engaged in a series of transactions
to withdraw and transfer the money, allegedly to Union Bank vs. Court of Appeals, 23 December
conceal the erroneous transfer. They purchased a 1999 (Subject Matter of Litigation)
160-acre lot in California for P3,236,800
(approximately $437,405), despite the property being The case involves Union Bank of the Philippines as the
appraised at only $38,500. The purchase was petitioner and Allied Bank Corporation as the
facilitated by realtor Jose Marquez, who acted as an respondent. The events leading to the case began on
March 21, 1990, when a check (Check No. 11669677) recover the money deposited in the account but rather
dated March 31, 1990, for One Million Pesos to establish Allied Bank's liability for the discrepancy.
(₱1,000,000.00) was drawn against Allied Bank's Therefore, the Court concluded that the inquiry into
Account No. 0111-01854-8, payable to Jose Ch. Allied Bank's account was not warranted under the
Alvarez. The payee deposited this check with Union exceptions provided by the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Bank, which credited the amount to Alvarez's account. Deposits, leading to the denial of Union Bank's
On May 21, 1990, Union Bank sent the check for petition.
clearing through the Philippine Clearing House
Corporation (PCHC). However, a clerical error Oñate vs. Abrogar, 23 February 1995 (Subject
occurred when Union Bank's staff under-encoded the Matter of Litigation)
check amount as One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00)
instead of One Million Pesos (₱1,000,000.00). This The case involves two sets of petitioners: Emmanuel
discrepancy was not discovered until May 7, 1991, C. Onate and Econ Holdings Corporation (G.R. No.
when Union Bank notified Allied Bank of the error, 107303), and Brunner Development Corporation (G.R.
seeking to charge Allied Bank for the difference of No. 107491), against Hon. Zeus C. Abrogar, the
Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Pesos Presiding Judge of Branch 150 of the Regional Trial
(₱999,000.00). Allied Bank refused to accept the Court of Makati, and Sun Life Assurance Company of
charge slip, arguing that the transaction was Canada. The events leading to the case began when
completed as per Union Bank's original instructions Sun Life filed a complaint against Onate and Brunner
and that their account was insufficiently funded. for estafa, alleging fraudulent transactions involving
Consequently, Union Bank "led a complaint against treasury bills. On January 3, 1992, Deputy Sheri"
Allied Bank before the PCHC Arbitration Committee, Arturo C. Flores served notices of garnishment on
seeking various forms of damages. In parallel, Union various banks and attached properties belonging to
Bank "led a petition in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Onate before the trial court had acquired jurisdiction
of Makati for the examination of Allied Bank's account. over the petitioners. The summons and complaint were
The RTC dismissed Union Bank's Petition, stating that only served on January 9, 1992. The petitioners
the case did not fall under any exceptions to the Law contended that the attachment of their properties was
on void due to the lack of jurisdiction at the time of the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits, which protects bank levy. They also argued that the examination of Onate's
deposits from disclosure. The Court of Appeals bank accounts was unwarranted since he was not a
a#rmed this dismissal, leading Union Bank to appeal to signatory to the relevant documents. Sun Life
the Supreme Court. countered that the subsequent service of summons
cured the invalidity of the attachment and justified the
Issue: examination of Onate's accounts due to his
1.​ Does the case fall under any of the exceptions involvement in the transactions. The lower court ruled
to the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, in favor of Sun Life, leading to the petitioners filing
specifically regarding whether the money motions for reconsideration, which were eventually
deposited is the subject matter of the referred to the Supreme Court en banc.
litigation?
Issue:
Ruling: 1.​ Was the attachment of the petitioners'
The Supreme Court denied Union Bank's petition, properties valid despite the trial court's lack of
affirming the lower courts' decisions that the case did jurisdiction at the time of the levy?
not fall under any exceptions to the Law on Secrecy of 2.​ Did the subsequent service of summons cure
Bank Deposits. the invalidity of the attachment?
3.​ Was the examination of Onate's bank
Ratio: accounts justified under the circumstances?
The Supreme Court reasoned that the money
deposited in Allied Bank's account was not the subject Ruling:
matter of the litigation. The Court emphasized that the 1.​ The Supreme Court ruled that the attachment
essence of Union Bank's complaint was based on of the petitioners' properties was void due to
Allied Bank's alleged failure to notify Union Bank of the the trial court's lack of jurisdiction at the time of
under-encoding error, which constituted a violation of the levy.
the PCHC Rule Book. The Court distinguished 2.​ The Court held that the subsequent service of
between the "cause of action" and the "subject matter summons did not cure the invalidity of the
of the action," clarifying that the subject matter must be attachment.
the actual money deposited, not merely the claim for 3.​ The examination of Onate's bank accounts
reimbursement arising from an alleged violation of was deemed invalid as it was connected to the
banking rules. void attachment.

The Court cited previous jurisprudence, including the Ratio:

case of Mellon Bank, which allowed for the The Supreme Court emphasized that the attachment
examination of bank accounts only when the money of properties must occur only after the court has
deposited was directly in dispute. In this case, Union acquired jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court
Bank was not seeking to reiterated that while a writ of preliminary attachment
may be issued before service of summons, its
implementation requires prior or simultaneous service Ruling:
of summons to ensure the defendant's rights are The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the
protected. The Court referenced previous rulings, Court of Appeals' decision and the Department of
including Davao Light & Power Co. v. Court of Justice's resolution to withdraw the informations
Appeals, which established that actions taken before against the private respondents. The Court ruled that
acquiring jurisdiction do not bind the defendant. The the disclosures of the petitioners' bank records were
Court also clarified that the examination of bank justified under the exceptions of Republic Act No.
records was invalid because it was contingent upon 1405, as they were relevant to the prosecution of
the validity of the attachment, which was already Santos and Genuino. Furthermore, the Court
deemed void. The ruling underscored the importance determined that the applicable law was Republic Act
of adhering to procedural requirements to uphold the No. 6426, which mandates absolute confidentiality for
rule of law and protect the rights of defendants in foreign currency deposits, and that the disclosures
attachment proceedings. made by the private respondents were unauthorized.

Ratio:
Intengan vs. CA, 15 February 2002 (Foreign The Supreme Court's ruling hinged on the
Currency Deposit Act) interpretation of the applicable laws regarding bank
secrecy. It clarified that while Republic Act No. 1405
The case involves petitioners Carmen Ll. Intengan, provides for certain exceptions to bank secrecy, the
Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner against case at hand involved foreign currency deposits, which
respondents Court of Appeals, Department of Justice, are governed by Republic Act No. 6426. This
Aziz Rajkotwala, William Ferguson, Joven Reyes, and law stipulates that foreign currency deposits are
Vic Lim. The events leading to the case began on confidential and can only be disclosed with the
September 21, 1993, when Citibank filed a complaint depositor's written consent. The Court noted that the
against its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou disclosures made by Lim and Reyes were
Genuino, for violations of the Corporation Code. The unauthorized, thus constituting a violation of Republic
complaint included an affidavit from Vic Lim, a vice- Act No. 6426.
president at Citibank, detailing the involvement of
Santos and Genuino in allegedly diverting bank clients' The Court also addressed the issue of prescription,
funds to their personal companies, Torrance stating that the offense under Republic Act No. 6426
Development Corporation and Global Pacific prescribes in eight years. Since the disclosures
Corporation, for investments that yielded higher occurred in 1993 and the complaint was filed well
returns. The affidavit named the petitioners as clients beyond the prescriptive period, the Court concluded
whose funds were manipulated. that the private respondents could no longer be
prosecuted for their actions. The Court emphasized
The investigation revealed that Santos and Genuino that ignorance of the law does not excuse
had persuaded clients, including the petitioners, to non-compliance, and the petitioners had the
transfer their deposits from Citibank to their opportunity to file the correct charges against the
companies, which then invested the funds in other respondents but failed to do so. Consequently, the
#nancial products. The petitioners filed motions to petition was denied, and no costs were awarded.
exclude their bank records from Lim's affidavit, arguing
that their confidential information was disclosed PSBank vs. Senate Impeachment Tribunal, 20
without their consent. The Provincial Prosecutor November 2012 (Impeachment Court)
initially recommended dismissing the complaints
against Santos and Genuino, but this was overruled, The case involves the Philippine Savings Bank
leading to the filing of informations for violation of (PSBank) and Pascual M. Garcia III, who is the
Republic Act No. 1405, the Bank Secrecy Law. The President of PSBank, as petitioners against the Senate
Department of Justice later ordered the withdrawal of Impeachment Court, which consists of various
these informations, prompting the petitioners to seek a senators acting as judges, and the prosecution panel
reversal of this decision of the House of Representatives as respondents. The
through a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which events leading to this case began with the
was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeals. impeachment proceedings against then Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona. On November 5, 2012, PSBank
Issue: and Garcia filed a Petition for Certiorari and
1.​ Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding the Prohibition, seeking to nullify a resolution from the
Department of Justice's resolution to withdraw Senate Impeachment Court that granted the
the informations against the private prosecution's request for a subpoena duces tecum ad
respondents for violation of Republic Act No. testificandum. This subpoena required PSBank and its
1405? representatives to testify and produce
2.​ Were the disclosures of the petitioners' bank documents related to foreign currency accounts
records justified under the exceptions provided allegedly belonging to Chief Justice Corona. The
in Republic Act No. 1405? petitioners argued that complying with the subpoena
3.​ Is the applicable law in this case Republic Act would violate Republic Act No. 6426, which protects
No. 1405 or Republic Act No. 6426, the the confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.
Foreign Currency Deposit Act? However, during the pendency of the petition, the
impeachment proceedings against Corona were
terminated, and the petitioners filed a Motion with others for theft and estafa. This case arose from the
Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition, stating that unauthorized withdrawals and laundering of funds
the situation had changed and they were no longer at erroneously credited to Ruby's Visa Electron Fast Card
risk of violating the law or facing contempt of court. Account. Norlina argued that Ruby had exploited a
The Supreme Court noted that the issues raised had system error to withdraw funds that were not rightfully
become moot and academic due to the supervening hers. Following the investigation, the OSI-BSP found a
events. prima facie case against Norlina for conducting
business in an unsafe manner under the General
Issue: Banking Law of 2000. Norlina subsequently "led a
1.​ Did the Senate Impeachment Court act Request to Answer Written Interrogatories and a
arbitrarily in issuing the subpoena for the Motion for Production of Documents, seeking access
foreign currency accounts of Chief Justice to bank statements from UCPB and BPI, claiming
Corona despite the confidentiality provisions of Ruby was the legal owner of those accounts.
Republic Act No. 6426?
2.​ Should the Supreme Court dismiss the petition However, the OGCLS-BSP denied these motions,
for being moot and academic? stating that the proceedings were administrative and
summary in nature, and that the requested documents
Ruling: were protected under the law on bank secrecy.
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for having Norlina's motions for reconsideration were also denied,
become moot and academic. The Court lifted the prompting her to "le a petition for certiorari with the
temporary restraining order that had been issued on Court of Appeals, which upheld the OGCLS-BSP's
February 9, 2012. decisions.

Ratio: Issue:
The Supreme Court reasoned that the issues raised in 1.​ Did the OGCLS-BSP commit grave abuse of
the petition had been overtaken by events, particularly discretion in denying Norlina G. Sibayan's
the conviction of Chief Justice Corona on May 29, requests to answer written interrogatories?
2012, and his subsequent waiver of confidentiality 2.​ Was Norlina entitled to the production of bank
regarding all his documents as per the Rules of Court?
bank accounts. The Court emphasized the principle
that courts will not entertain cases that have become Ruling:
moot and academic, as there is no longer a justiciable The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the Court
controversy to resolve. The Court cited the ruling in of Appeals, ruling that the OGCLS-BSP did not commit
Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor, which states that grave abuse of discretion in denying Norlina's motions
courts decline jurisdiction over moot cases where no for written interrogatories and the production of bank
actual interests are involved. Since the petitioners no documents.
longer faced the dilemma of violating the law or being
held in contempt, the Court found it appropriate to Ratio:
abstain from addressing the merits of the case, as no The Court emphasized that administrative
legal relief was necessary or warranted. proceedings, such as those conducted by the
OGCLS-BSP, do not strictly adhere to the technical
Sibayan vs. Alda, 17 January 2018 (Consent) rules of procedure and evidence applicable in judicial
trials. The nature of the proceedings is summary,
The case involves Norlina G. Sibayan (petitioner) and aimed at achieving a swift resolution without
Elizabeth O. Alda (respondent), represented by her unnecessary delays. The Court noted that Norlina's
attorney-in-fact, Ruby O. Alda. The events leading to reliance on the Rules of Court for discovery
this case began with a letter-complaint "led by procedures was misplaced, as these rules are not
Elizabeth against Norlina, who was the Assistant mandatory for administrative bodies.
Manager and Marketing Officer of Banco De Oro
Unibank, Inc. (BDO) at its San Fernando, La Union The Court further explained that the requested bank
Branch. The complaint, lodged with the Office of documents were protected under the Law on Secrecy
Special Investigation of the Bangko Sentral ng of Bank Deposits, which prohibits examination of bank
Pilipinas (OSI-BSP), accused Norlina of unauthorized accounts without the depositor's consent, except in
deductions from Elizabeth's BDO Savings Account specific circumstances. Since the accounts in question
(Account No. 0970097875) and failure to post certain belonged to Ferdinand and Jovelyn Oriente, and not
check deposits. Elizabeth alleged that her account Ruby, Norlina could not claim access based on Ruby's
balance, which was P1,071,561.73 as of July 22, purported permissions.
2008, plummeted to P334.47 by October 31, 2008,
despite no withdrawals being made during that period. Moreover, the Court found that Norlina was afforded
Additionally, she claimed that two manager's checks due process, having been given the opportunity to
deposited on October 27, 2008, were not credited to present her defense and submit relevant documents.
her account. The information she sought through her motions was
already available in the case records, and granting her
In her defense, Norlina contended that the charges requests would only serve to delay the proceedings.
were retaliatory, stemming from a criminal case Thus, the OGCLS-BSP's decisions were upheld as
previously "led by BDO against Elizabeth, Ruby, and valid and within its discretion.