Union Bank of the Philippines, petitioner, v. Spouses Rodolfo T. Tiu and Victoria N.

Tiu, respondents Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to reverse the joint decision of the CA in 2006. On Nove !er "##$, %nion &ank of the 'hi(ippines and the spo)ses *odo(fo T. Ti) and +ictoria N. Ti) entered into a Credit ,ine Agree ent -C,A.. Fro /epte !er "##0 to 1arch "##2, the spo)ses took o)t vario)s (oans p)rs)ant to the C,A in the tota( a o)nt of %/ 34.642 i((ion as evidenced !5 pro issor5 notes. %nion &ank, in view of the e6isting c)rrenc5 risks in "##2, wrote a (etter to the spo)ses advising the that the (oans sha(( !e redeno inated to their e7)iva(ent 'hi(ippine peso a o)nt to which the spo)ses a)thori8ed at the rate of %/ 3"9'hp :".:0 with interest of "#; for one 5ear. The parties entered into a restr)ct)ring agree ent wherein the parties dec(ared that the (oan o!(igation to !e restr)ct)red -after ded)cting the dacion price of properties ceded !5 the spo)ses and adding the ta6es, registration fees and other e6penses. is 'hp "0:,662,0:", which the spo)ses )ndertook to pa5 via 4 (oan faci(ities<pa5 ent sche es. 1oreover, as provided in the said agree ent, the spo)ses e6ec)ted a rea( estate ortgage in favor of the !ank over their propert5 with an area of 4,0#6 s7)are eters. %nion &ank, however, asserted that the spo)ses fai(ed to co p(5 with the pa5 ent sche es= th)s, it initiated e6traj)dicia( forec(os)re proceedings on the residentia( propert5 of spo)ses. The propert5 was to !e so(d at p)!(ic a)ction= th)s, the spo)ses instit)ted action. >ss)e: ?hether or not the restr)ct)ring agree ent is va(id for having redeno inated the do((ar (oans to 'hi(ippine c)rrenc5. *)(ing: The co)rt r)(ed that the *estr)ct)ring Agree ent is va(id. ')rs)ant to /ection " of *A $2#, an5 agree ent to pa5 an o!(igation in a c)rrenc5 other than the 'hi(ippine c)rrenc5 is void= the ost that co)(d !e de anded is to pa5 said o!(igation in 'hi(ippine c)rrenc5 to !e eas)red in the prevai(ing rate of e6change at the ti e the o!(igation was inc)rred. *A :"00 took effect in "#6: which odified *A $2# !5 providing for severa( e6ceptions to the n)((it5 of agree ents to pa5 foreign c)rrenc5. Centra( &ank Circ)(ar No. "42# was iss)ed in "##4 which (ifted foreign e6change restrictions and (i!era(i8ed trade in foreign c)rrenc5. >n cases of foreign !orrowings and foreign c)rrenc5 (oans, however, approva( of &/' was re7)ired. >n "##6, *A 2"24 took effect, e6press(5 repea(ing *A $2# and provides that parties a5 agree that the o!(igation or transaction !e sett(ed in a c)rrenc5 other than the 'hi(ippine c)rrenc5 at the ti e of pa5 ent. The Co)rt considered the ti e when the *estr)ct)ring Agree ent was signed, which was d)ring the height of the financia( crisis and when the 'hi(ippine peso was rapid(5 depreciating. The

co)rts considered the risk of ina!i(it5 to pa5 !5 the spo)se if the parties did not enter into the said agree ent. BANK O !O""#R!# VS P$ANT#RS %#V#$OP"#NT BANK Facts: For the "st set of C& !i((s, *i8a( Co ercia( &anking Corporation -*C&C. was the registered owner of 0 Centra( &ank -C&. !i((s with a tota( face va()e of 'hp 00 i((ion, which were event)a((5 so(d to &ank of Co erce -&OC., which, in t)rn, so(d these C& !i((s to '(anters @eve(op ent &ank -'@&. as evidenced !5 a A@etached Assign ent.B A week (ater, '@& so(d to the &OC Treas)r5 &i((s worth 'hp 00 i((ion as evidenced !5 a Trading Order and Confir ation of /a(e. For the 2nd set of C& !i((s, *C&C so(d 2 C& !i((s with a tota( face va()e of 'hp 20 i((ion to the '@& and de(ivered to '@& the corresponding @etached Assign ent. '@& de(ivered to &ancap the 2 C& !i((s which in t)rn so(d the C& !i((s to A(CA anah >s(a ic >nvest ent &ank of the 'hi(ippines, which a(so so(d it to the &OC. %pon (earning of the transfers invo(ving the C& &i((s, the '@& infor ed the officerCinCcharge of the &/'Ds Eovern ent /ec)rities @epar ent of the '@&Ds c(ai over these C& !i((s, !ased on the @etached Assign ents in its possession. The re7)ests of '@& were denied !5 the officerCinC charge which pro pted the petitioner to fi(e an action so as to co pe( the &/' to deter ine the part5 (ega((5 entit(ed to the proceeds of the s)!ject C& !i((s. >ss)e: ?hether or not the &angko /entra( ng 'i(ipinas has j)risdiction in deter ining the part5 (ega((5 entit(ed to the proceeds of the C& !i((s. *)(ing: %nder the New Centra( &ank Act -*A 06$4., the &/' is given the responsi!i(it5 of providing po(ic5 directions in the areas of one5, !anking and credit= it is given the pri ar5 o!jective of aintaining price sta!i(it5, cond)cive to a !a(anced and s)staina!(e growth of the econo 5 and of pro oting and aintaining onetar5 sta!i(it5 and converti!i(it5 of the peso. 1oreover, the Constit)tion e6press(5 grants the &/' the power of s)pervision over the operation of !anks. ?hi(e *A 06$4 e powers the &/' to cond)ct ad inistrative hearings and render j)dg ent for or against an entit5 )nder its s)pervisor5 and reg)(ator5 powers, the grant of 7)asiCj)dicia( a)thorit5 to the &/' cannot possi!(5 e6tend to sit)ation which do not ca(( for the e6ercise !5 the &/' of its s)pervisor5 or reg)(ator5 f)nctions over entities within its j)risdiction.

The fact a(one that the parties invo(ved are !anking instit)tions does not necessari(5 ca(( for the e6ercise !5 the &/' of its 7)asiCj)dicia( powers )nder the (aw.
China Bank Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 511 SCRA 110 (2006)

FACTS:

- Jose Gotianuy accused his daughter Mary Margaret Dee of stealing, among his other properties, US dollar deposits with Citibank !"! amounting to not less than #$%,&&&,&&&!&& and US'()*,&&&!&&! Mary !"! through checks which she allegedly deposited Margaret Dee recei+ed these amounts from Citibank

at China ,anking Corporation -China ,ank.! /e likewise accused his son-in-law, George Dee, husband of his daughter, Mary Margaret, of transferring his real properties and shares of stock in George Dee0s name without any consideration! Jose Gotianuy, died during the pendency of the case before the trial court! /e was substituted by his daughter, 1li2abeth Gotianuy 3o! 4he latter presented the US Dollar checks withdrawn by Mary Margaret Dee from his US dollar placement with Citibank!

-Upon motion of 1li2abeth Gotianuy 3o, the trial court issued a subpoena to Cristota 3abios and 5sabel 6ap, employees of China ,ank, to testify on the case!

-China ,ank opposed!

TC:

-4he disclosure is only as to the name or whose name the said fund is deposited is not +iolati+e of the law

CA:

-"ffirmed 4C! 4he law protects only the deposit itself but not the name of depositor!

CBs Contention:

-Jose Gotianuy is not the owner of the 7uestioned foreign currency deposit, thus, he cannot in+oke the aid of the court in compelling the disclosure of someone else0s foreign currency deposit!

ISSUE:

-8hether or not Jose Gotianuy as co 9payee of a foreign currency depositor in checks deposited in the account of Mary Margaret Dee is a depositor!

HELD:

-4he law pro+ides that all foreign currency deposits authori2ed under :epublic "ct by Sec! (, #residential Decree o! <;*), #residential Decree deposits authori2ed under #residential Decree

o! )*;), as amended

o! <&$%, as well as foreign currency

o! <&$* are considered absolutely confidential in nature

and may not be in7uired into! 4here is only one e=ception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed upon the written permission of the depositor!

-"s the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and which are undisputably now deposited with China ,ank, Jose Gotianuy has the right to in7uire into the said deposits! -" depositor, in cases of bank deposits, is one who pays money into the bank in the usual course of business, to be placed to his credit and sub>ect to his check or the beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee! -"s C" ruled?

@urthermore, it is indubitable that the Citibank checks were drawn against the foreign currency account with Citibank, "! 4he monies sub>ect of said checks originally came from the late Jose Gotianuy, the owner of the account! 4hus, he also has legal rights and interests in the C,C account where said monies were deposited! More importantly, the Citibank checks readily demonstrate that the late Jose Gotianuy is one of the payees of said checks. Being a co-payee thereof, then he or his estate can be considered as a codepositor of said checks. 1rgo, since the late Jose Gotianuy is a co-depositor of the C,C account, then his re7uest for the assailed subpoena is tantamount to an e=press permission of a depositor for the disclosure of the name of the account holder!

&S'S vs !A FACT/: On @ece !er "4, "##6, a s)ret5 !ond was agreed with @O1/AT FO,@>NE/, >NC. as the principa( and the E/>/ as ad inistrator and the o!(iges are ,and &ank of the 'hi(ippines, Tong Gang 1erchant &ank, >nd)stria( &ank of Horea and First 1erchant &anking Corporation co((ective(5 known as AThe &anksB with the (oan granted to @O1/AT of %/ 3 "",000,000.00 to !e )sed for the financing of the twoC5ear (ease of a*)ssian /ate((ite fro >NTI*/'%TN>H.@o sat fai(ed to pa5 the (oan and E/>/ ref)sed to co p(5 with its o!(igation reasoning that @o sat didnot )se the (oan proceeds for the pa5 ent of renta( for the sate((ite. E/>/ a((eged that @o sat, with ?est ont&ank as the cond)it, transferred the %./. 3"" 1i((ion (oan proceeds fro the >nd)stria( &ank of Horea toCiti!ank New Gork acco)nt of ?est ont &ank and fro there to the &inondo &ranch of ?est ont &ank. The&anks fi(ed a co p(aint !efore the *TC of 1akati against @o sat and E/>/.E/>/ re7)ested for the iss)ance of a s)!poena d)ces tec) to the c)stodian of records of ?est ont&ank to prod)ce !ank (edger covering the acco)nt of @o sat with the ?est ont &ank -now %nited Overseas&ank. and other pertinent doc) ents. The *TC iss)ed the s)!poena !)t nonethe(ess, the *TC then granted the second otion for reconsideration !5 AThe &anksB to 7)ash the s)!poena granted to E/>/. E/>/ assai(ed its case to the CA and CA partia((5 granted itDs petition a((owing it to (ook into doc) ents !)t not the !ank (edger !eca)se the %/ 3 "",000,000.00 deposited !5 @o sat to ?est ont &ank is covered!5 *.A. 6:26 or the &ank /ecrec5 ,aw.E/>/ now fi(ed a petition for certiorari in the /)pre e Co)rt for the decision of CA a((owing the 7)asha(!5 the *TC of a s)!poena for the prod)ction of !ank (edger. >//%I: ?hether or not the deposited %/ 3 "",000,000.00 !5 @o sat, >nc. to ?est ont &ank is covered !5 *.A. 6:26 as what AThe &anksB contend or it is covered !5 *.A. ":0$ as what E/>/ contends. *%,>NE:

The /)pre e Co)rt r)(ed in favor of *.A. 6:26 and there!5 AFF>*1>NE the decision of Co)rt of Appea(s.*.A. ":0$ was enacted on "#$$ whi(e *.A. 6:26 was enacted on "#0:. These two (aws !oth s)pport theconfidentia(it5 of !ank deposits. There is no conf(ict !etween the . *ep)!(ic Act No. ":0$ was enacted for thep)rpose of giving enco)rage ent to the peop(e to deposit their one5 in !anking instit)tions and to disco)rageprivate hoarding so that the sa e a5 !e proper(5 )ti(i8ed !5 !anks in a)thori8ed (oans to assist in theecono ic deve(op ent of the co)ntr5. >t covers a(( !ank deposits in the 'hi(ippines and no distinction was ade !etween do estic and foreign deposits. Th)s, *ep)!(ic Act No. ":0$ is considered a (aw of genera(app(ication. On the other hand, *ep)!(ic Act No. 6:26 was intended to enco)rage deposits fro foreign(enders and investors. >t is a specia( (aw designed especia((5 for foreign c)rrenc5 deposits in the 'hi(ippines. Agenera( (aw does not n)((if5 a specific or specia( (aw. Eenera(ia specia(i!)s non derogant. Therefore, it is!e5ond cavi( that *ep)!(ic Act No. 6:26 app(ies in this case.>ntengan v. Co)rt of Appea(s affir ed the a!oveCcited princip(e and categorica((5 dec(ared that for foreignc)rrenc5 deposits, s)ch as %./. do((ar deposits, the app(ica!(e (aw is *ep)!(ic Act No. 6:26.>n said case, Citi!ank fi(ed an action against its officers for pers)ading their c(ients to transfer their do((ar deposits to co petitor !anks. &ank records, inc()ding do((ar deposits of petitioners, p)rporting to esta!(ish thedeception practiced !5 the officers, were anne6ed to the co p(aint. 'etitioners now co p(ained that Citi!ankvio(ated *ep)!(ic Act No. ":0$. /)pre e Co)rt r)(ed that since the acco)nts in 7)estion are %./. do((ar deposits, the app(ica!(e (aw therefore is not *ep)!(ic Act No. ":0$ !)t *ep)!(ic Act No. 6:26.