Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

RA 1405 LAW ON SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS

PURPOSE: (Sec. 1)
1.) To discourage private hoarding;
2.) To encouragement the people to deposit their money
in banking institutions so that the same may be
properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist
in the economic development of the country.
PROHIBITED ACTS: (Sec. 3)
1.) Examination and inquiry or looking into all deposits of
whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in
the Philippines including investments in bonds issued
by the Government.
2.) Any disclosure by any official or employee of any bank
to any unauthorized person of any information
concerning the said deposits.
*Note: any official or employee of a banking institution
can only be penalized.
DEPOSITS COVERED:
General Rule: All deposits of whatever nature with banks or
banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in
bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities.
EXCEPTIONS:
A.) From RA 1405

1.) Where the depositor consents in writing;


2.) In impeachment cases;
3.) By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases
against public officials;
4.) Deposit is subject of litigation
B.) Additional Exceptions Under Other Laws:
1.) Sec. 8 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA 3019 illgotten wealth; added by analogy in PNB vs. Gancayco
Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If
in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act
Numbered One thousand three hundred seventynine, a public official has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his
name or in the name of other persons, an amount
of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or
removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and
unmarried children of such public official may be
taken into consideration, when their acquisition
through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily
shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into
consideration in the enforcement of this section,
notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary.
2.) Sec 15 (8) RA 6770 Ombudsman Act;
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.
The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the
following powers, functions and duties:

(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and


subpoena duces tecum, and take testimony in any
investigation or inquiry, including the power to
examine and have access to bank accounts and
records;
3.) Sec 6 (F) of the National Internal Revenue Code of
1997 RA 8424 <a &b>;

application shall not be considered unless and until


he waives in writing his privilege under Republic
act NO. 1405 or under other general or special
laws, and such waiver shall constitute the authority
of the Commissioner to inquire into the bank
deposits of the taxpayer.
4.) Sec 9 (c) Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 RA 9160
& Sec 11;

Section 6. Power of the Commissioner to Make


assessments
and
Prescribe
additional
Requirements
for
Tax
Administration
and
Enforcement.

Section 9. Prevention of Money Laundering;


Customer Identification Requirements and Record
Keeping.

(F) Authority of the Commissioner to inquire into


Bank Deposit Accounts. - Notwithstanding any
contrary provision of Republic Act No. 1405 and
other general or special laws, the Commissioner is
hereby authorized to inquire into the bank deposits
of:

(c) Reporting of Covered Transactions.


Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC all
covered transactions within five (5) working days
from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising
Authority concerned prescribes a longer period not
exceeding ten (10) working days.

(1) a decedent to determine his gross


estate; and

When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,


covered institutions and their officers, employees,
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or
associates shall not be deemed to have violated
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act
No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and
other similar laws, but are prohibited from
communicating, directly or indirectly, in any
manner or by any means, to any person the fact
that a covered transaction report was made, the
contents thereof, or any other information in
relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the
concerned officer, employee, representative,
agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the

(2) any taxpayer who has filed an


application for compromise of his tax
liability under Sec. 204 (A) (2) of this Code
by reason of financial incapacity to pay his
tax liability.
In case a taxpayer files an application to
compromise the payment of his tax liabilities on his
claim that his financial position demonstrates a
clear inability to pay the tax assessed, his

covered institution, shall be criminally liable.


However, no administrative, criminal or civil
proceedings, shall lie against any person for having
made a covered transaction report in the regular
performance of his duties and in good faith,
whether or not such reporting results in any
criminal prosecution under this Act or any other
Philippine law.
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC,
covered institutions and their officers, employees,
representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or
associates are prohibited from communicating,
directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any
means, to any person, entity, the media, the fact
that a covered transaction report was made, the
contents thereof, or any other information in
relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be
published or aired in any manner or form by the
mass media, electronic mail, or other similar
devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned
officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor,
consultant or associate of the covered institution,
or media shall be held criminally liable.
Section 11. Authority to inquire into Bank
Deposits. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act
No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791, and
other laws, the AMLC may inquire into or examine
any particular deposit or investment with any
banking institution or non-bank financial institution
upon order of any competent court in cases of
violation of this Act when it has been established
that there is probable cause that the deposits or

investments involved are in any way related to a


money laundering offense: Provided, That this
provision shall not apply to deposits and
investments made prior to the effectivity of this
Act.
5.) Unclaimed Balances Law Act No. 3696 Disclosure of
Dormant Accounts -10 years;
6.) The NCBA Sec. 26 RA 7653
Section 26. Bank Deposits and Investments. Any director, officer or stockholder who, together
with his related interest, contracts a loan or any
form of financial accommodation from: (1) his
bank; or (2) from a bank (a) which is a subsidiary of
a bank holding company of which both his bank
and the lending bank are subsidiaries or (b) in
which a controlling proportion of the shares is
owned by the same interest that owns a controlling
proportion of the shares of his bank, in excess of
five percent (5%) of the capital and surplus of the
bank, or in the maximum amount permitted by
law, whichever is lower, shall be required by the
lending bank to waive the secrecy of his deposits
of whatever nature in all banks in the Philippines.
Any information obtained from an examination of
his deposits shall be held strictly confidential and
may be used by the examiners only in connection
with their supervisory and examination
responsibility or by the Bangko Sentral in an
appropriate legal action it has initiated involving
the deposit account.
GARNISHMENT OF DEPOSITS, INCLUDING FOREIGN DEPOSITS:

Foreign Currency Deposit Act RA 6426 Sec 8

Exception:
- Salvacion vs Central Bank of the Philippines
Section 11 of AMLA: When it has been established
that there is probable cause that the deposits or
investments involved are in any way related to a
money laundering offense.

Intengan vs CA Gr no. 128996 Feb 15, 2002


Facts: two employees engaged in anamolous activities
that were in contrast to citbanks aim. Violation of the corporation
code. In their annexes, they included the bank accounts.
Held: this should have been under foreign nd not RA 1405.
Ideally, cannot divulged, it has prescribed. They did not use the
correct charge. Prescriptive period has elapsed after 11 years.
In essence, it should not been divulged, because of the written
exemption and also Sec 11 AMLA
Estrada vs. Desierto GR No. 156160
Whereas clause RA 6426
- they wanted to encourage foreign depositors; aimed
to invite foregin investors
- except non residents and are not engaged in trade
or business in the philippines
Garnishment of Deposits
- A legal proceeding whereby money or property due a
debtor but in the possession of another is applied to
the payment of the debt owed to the plaintiff
- China Bank Corp vs. Ortega
- However Sec 8 RA 6426:
General Rule:
-However Sec 8 RA 6426; forgein currency
deposits shall be exempt from attachment,
garnishment, or any other order or process of any
court, legilative body, governement agency or any
administrative body whatsoever.

PENALTIES: Subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment


of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty
thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court. (Sec. 5)
CASES:
1.) Mellon vs. Bank Magsino
FACTS:

This case involves the erroneous transfer of


$1M to Victoria Javier instead of $1K. First National
bank requested the petitioner, Mellon Bank, to
effect the transfer. Unfortunately, the wire sent by
Mellon Bank to manufacturer Hanover Bank
transferred the amount of S1M less bank charges
to the account of Victoria Javier.
The Javier spouses wasted no time and
opened a new dollar account, the withdrew the
money and converted it to 6 cashiers check with a
payee of different companies, these were delivered
to Marquez and Poblador.
The husband requested Marquez to look a
real property in USA as an agent of Poblador, the
husband purchased the lot of Poblador, a 160-acre
in California City. For the payment, Poblador

requested it shall not be directed to him, instead to


the companies.
Mellon filed a complaint for the recovery of
the lot.
In order to trace the whereabouts of the
portion of the funds, witnesses Red and Boylasis
were made to testify that in PVB there was a
transaction made by Azada w/c involved 2 checks
and this was transferred to Hagedorn, one of the
companies w/c is in connection w/ Poblador. The
defendants invoked RA 1405 claiming that the
testimonies must be off the record as it is against
secrecy of bank deposit.

provision of law to the contrary.


FACTS:
Prosecutor Gancayao required PNB to produce
the records of the bank deposits of Jimenez, the former
administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Administration. Jimenez was under investigation for
unexplained wealth. PNB refused to produce the records
of the bank deposits for fear of prosecution under RA 1405
(Bank Secrecy Law). Gancayao on the other hand relied on
the provisions of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act), stating

ISSUE: Whether or not an account deposit w/c is


relevant and material to the resolution of the case
may be covered under RA 1405.

Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth.


xx xx xx Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration
in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary.

HELD:

ISSUE: Whether RA 3019 prevails over RA 1405?

No. Sec 2 of RA 1405 allows the disclosure


of bank deposits in cases where the money
deposited is the subject matter of the litigation.
Inasmuch as the civil case is aimed at
recovering the amount converted by the Javiers for
their own benefit, necessarily, an inquiry into the
whereabouts of the illegally acquired amount
extends to whatever is concealed by being held or
recorded in the name of persons other than the
one responsible for the illegal acquisition.
2.) PNB vs. Gancayco

RULING:
YES. Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act prevails
over the Bank Secrecy Law. The anti graft law directs in
mandatory terms that bank deposits shall be taken into
consideration in the enforcement of this section,
notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The
only conclusion possible is that Section 8 of the Anti Graft
Law is intended to amend Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy
Law by providing an additional exception to the rule
against the disclosure of bank deposits.
3.) China Bank vs. Ortega

DOCTRINE: Sec. 8 of RA 3019 directs in mandatory


terms that bank deposits shall be taken into consideration
in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any

DOCTRINE: Garnishment of bank deposit judgment


debtor is not violative of RA 1405. The Court merely

required the cashier of the bank to inform the court


whether or not the defendant had a deposit in said bank
only for purposes of the garnishment issued by it, so that
the bank would hold the same intact and not allow any
withdrawal until further order.
FACTS:
In 1968, Acaban filed a complaint against Bautista
Logging Co., Inc., B & B Forest Development Corporation
and Marino Bautista for the collection of sum of money.
RTC declared the defendants in default for failure to file
their responsive pleadings within the reglementary period.
To satisfy the judgment, Acaban sought the
garnishment of the bank deposit of B & B Forest
Development Corporation with China Banking Corporation.
Accordingly, a notice of garnishment was issued and
served on the banks cashier, Tan Kim Liong.
In reply, Tan Kim Liong invoked the provisions of the
Bank Secrecy Law prohibiting the disclosure of any
information relative to bank deposits. RTC, in denying
Acabans motion to cite Tan Kim Liong in contempt,
nevertheless ordered the latter to inform the court
whether or not there is a deposit with China Banking
Corporation of B & B Forest Development Corporation, and
if any, to hold the same intact and not to allow any
withdrawal until further orders.
ISSUE: Whether there was a violation of the provisions of
the Bank Secrecy Law prohibiting the disclosure of any
information relative to bank deposits
HELD:
NO. The lower court did not order an examination of
or inquiry into the deposit of B&B Forest Development
Corporation. It merely required Tan Kim Liong to inform

the court of the existence of B&B Forest Development


Corporations deposit in said bank only for the purpose of
the garnishment issued by it, so that the bank would hold
the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further
order.
It is clear from the discussion of the conference
committee report of the 2 houses of Congress that the
prohibition against examination of or inquiry into a bank
deposit under RA 1405 does NOT preclude its being
garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. There is no
real inquiry in this case, and if the existence of the bank
account is disclosed, the disclosure is purely incidental to
the execution process.
4.) Intengan vs. CA
DOCTRINE: Where the accounts in question are US dollar
deposits, the applicable law is RA 6426 (FCDA), not RA 1405
(Bank Secrecy Law). Under the applicable law, the only
exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits is
upon the written permission of the depositor.
FACTS:
In 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation of Sec.
31, in relation to Sec. 144 of the Corporation Code against
its 2 officers, Santos and Genuino. It was alleged in the
affidavit executed by its VP Vic Lim that Santos and
Genuino managed or caused existing bank
clients/depositors to divert their money from Citibank NA to
products offered by other companies (Torrance
Development Corporation and Global Pacific Corporation)
that were yielding higher interest rates. In return, Santos
and Genuino derived substantial financial gains. It was also
determined that the bank clients accommodated by Santos

and Genuino include Intengan, Neri and Brawner, who have


long standing accounts with Citibank NA in savings/dollar
deposits and/or in trust accounts and/or money placements.
As evidence, Lim annexed bank records, including
dollar deposits of Intengan, Neri and Brawner, to establish
the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino.
In turn, Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibanks
VP/Business Manager Reyes admitted to having authorized
Lim to state the names of the clients involved and to attach
said bank records.
Intengan, Neri and Brawner filed their respective
motions for the exclusion and physical withdrawal of their
bank records, which was initially dismissed by 2nd Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor Ubana, Sr. However, Provincial
Prosecutor Castro directed the filing of informations against
Rajkotwala, Ferguson, Reyes and Lim for alleged violation of
the Bank Secrecy Law. On appeal before the DOJ, this was
reversed.
ISSUE: Whether the Bank Secrecy Law, RA 1405 applies in this
case
HELD:
NO. The accounts in question are US dollar deposits.
Consequently, the applicable law is RA 6426 known as the
Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, and not RA 1405
(Bank Secrecy Law).
Under Sec. 8 of RA 6426, there is only a single exception to
the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is
allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor.
Incidentally, the acts of the Citibank officials complained of
happened before the enactment of RA 9160, Anti-Money
Laundering Act of 2001.
A case for violation of RA 6426 should have been the proper
case brought against the banks officials. Lim and Reyes admitted

that they had disclosed details of petitioners dollar deposits


without the latters written permission. It does not matter if that
such disclosure was necessary to establish the banks case
against Santos and Genuino. Lims act of disclosing details of
petitioners bank records regarding their foreign currency
deposits, with the authority of Reyes, would appear to belong to
the species of criminal acts punishable under special laws
malum prohibitum.
5.) Estrada vs. Desierto
Finally, with respect to the complaint for violation of Section 8
of Rep. Act No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposits Act of the
Philippines), public respondents ratiocinated[30] -At this point, it is worth stressing, that this office in its
previous Order dated 20 February 2001, ruled that the absolute
confidentiality of foreign currency deposit account provided for
under R.A. 6426 does not apply to the foreign currency deposit
accounts of herein complainant, since the protection under the
said law is intended only for depositors who are non residents
and are not engaged in trade and business in the Philippines. In
coming out with such ruling, this office has as its basis one of the
Whereas clauses of P.D. 1246 which amended Sec. 8 of R.A.
6426. For emphasis, the pertinent provision of the said law is
hereby quoted:
WHEREAS, in order to assure the development and speedy
growth of the Foreign Currency Deposit System and offshore
Banking System in the Philippines, certain incentives were
provided for under the two systems such as confidentiality of
deposits subject to certain exceptions and tax exemptions on the
interest of the income of depositors who are nonresidents and
are not engaged in trade or business in the Philippines.

Considering the previous Order of this Office, it necessarily


follows that the accusation for violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426
against herein respondents has no leg to stand on, thus, the
dismissal of the charge for violation of Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426 is
therefore in order.
In Salvacion v. Central Bank and China Bank, 278 SCRA 27
(1997), the Highest Tribunal adopted the opinion of the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) that only foreign currency deposits of
foreign lenders and investors are given protection and incentives
by the law, and further ruled that the Foreign Currency Deposits
Act cannot be utilized to perpetuate injustice.[32] Following such
pronouncements, it is respectfully submitted that foreign
currency deposits of Filipino depositors, including herein
complainant, are not covered by the Foreign Currency Deposits
Act, and are thus not exempt from the processes duly-issued by
the BIR.
With respect specifically to the resolution for violation of
Section 8 of Rep. Act. No. 6426, public respondents relied on the
whereas clause of P.D. No. 1246 which amended Rep. Act No.
6426 and on the Salvacion case to conclude that only nonresidents who are not engaged in trade and business are under
the mantle of protection of Section 8 of Rep. Act. No. 6426.
Assuming that such reliance is erroneous as contended by
petitioner,[36] this Court, on petition for certiorari, cannot correct
the same as the error is not of a degree that would amount to a
clear case of abuse of discretion of the grave and malevolent
kind. It is axiomatic that not every erroneous conclusion of law
or fact is abuse of discretion.[37] As adverted to earlier, this
Court will interfere in the Ombudsmans findings of fact and
conclusions of law only in clear cases of grave abuse of
discretion.
6.) Salvacion vs. Central Bank

DOCTRINE: Sec. 113 of CB Circular No. 960, which


exempts from garnishment, attachment or any other order
or process of any court, legislative body, government
agency or any administrative body whatsoever foreign
currency deposits, is NOT applicable to a foreign transient,
but only to foreign lenders and investors to the
development of the Foreign Currency Deposit System and
Offshore Banking System in the Philippines.
FACTS
On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an
American tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen
Salvacion, then 12 years old to go with him to his
apartment. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion
for four days, or up to February 7, 1989 and was able to
rape the child. Greg was eventually apprehended but he
escaped from detention.
The Deputy Sheriff of Makati served a Notice of
Garnishment on China Banking Corporation. In a letter
dated March 13, 1989 to the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China
Banking Corporation invoked Republic Act No. 1405 as its
answer to the notice of garnishment served on it. On March
15, 1989, Deputy Sheriff of Makati Armando de Guzman
sent his reply to China Banking Corporation saying that the
garnishment did not violate the secrecy of bank deposits
since the disclosure is merely incidental to a garnishment
properly and legally made by virtue of a court order which
has placed the subject deposits in custodia legis. In answer
to this letter of the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking
Corporation, in a letter dated March 20, 1989, invoked
Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the effect
that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are
exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order
or process of any court, legislative body, government

agency or any administrative body, whatsoever.


After hearing the case ex-parte, the court rendered
judgment in favor of petitioners on March 29, 1990. But
China Bank still refuses to garnish the foreign denominated
deposits of Greg.
ISSUE: Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960
and Section 8 of R.A. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246,
otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act be
made applicable to a foreign transient?
RULING:
NO. The SC ruled provisions of Sec 113 of CB Circ No.
960 and PD 1246 to be inapplicable to the case at bar
because of its peculiar circumstance. Respondents are
required to comply.
There would be a result of unjust to a citizen
aggrieved by a foreign guest like Bertelli to use as a device
those provision to shield them from any wrongdoings.
If Karen's sad fate had happened to anybody's own
kin, it would be difficult for him to fathom how the incentive
for foreign currency deposit could be more important than
his child's rights to said award of damages; in this case, the
victim's claim for damages from this alien who had the gall
to wrong a child of tender years of a country where he is a
mere visitor. This further illustrates the flaw in the
questioned provisions.
It is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was
enacted in 1983 or at a time when the country's 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 outright
injustice and inequality such as the case before us.
There would be a result of injustice to a citizen
aggrieved by a foreigner guest like Bertelli to use as a
device those provision to shield them form any
wrongdoings.
7.) Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank vs. Purisma
FACTS:
Customs special agent Manuel Caturla is accused by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue of having violated R.A. No. 3019 of the "AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act" for having allegedly acquired
property manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other
lawful income. In the course of the preliminary investigation
thereof, the Tanodbayan issued a subpoena duces tecum to the
Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, commanding its
representative to appear at a specified time at the Office of the
Tanodbayan and furnish the latter with duly certified copies of the
records in all its branches and extension offices, of the loans,
savings and time deposits and other banking transactions, dating
back to 1969, appearing in the names of Caturla, his wife, Purita
Caturla, their children Manuel, Jr., Marilyn and Michael
and/or Pedro Escuyos.
Caturla moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum but was
denied by Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta. Petitioner Banco Filipino
filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of First
Instance of Manila but was denied for lack of merit by respondent
Judge Purisima.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RA 1405 "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits"

precludes production by subpoena duces tecum of bank records


of transactions by or in the names of the wife, children and
friends of a special agent of the Bureau of Customs, accused
before the Tanodbayan of having allegedly acquired property
manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful
income, in violation of the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act".
HELD:
No. The inquiry into illegally acquired property or property NOT
"legitimately acquired" extends to cases where such property
is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other
persons. This proposition is made clear by R.A. No. 3019 which
quite categorically states that the term, "legitimately acquired
property of a public officer or employee shall not include ..
property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but its
ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of, or
held by, respondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives
or any other persons."
The provisions of R.A. No. 1405 subject of BF's declaratory action,
read as follows:
Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking
institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds
issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political
subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as
of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined,
inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor,
or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court
in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in
cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of litigation.

Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a


banking institution to disclose to any person other than those
mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said
deposits
The other provision involved in the declaratory action is Section 8
of R.A. No. 3019. It reads:
Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance
with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand
three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to
have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money
manifestly out of proportion to this salary and to his other lawful
income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.
Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of
such public official may be taken into consideration, when their
acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily
shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the
enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any prohibition of
law to the contrary.
In our decision in Philippine National Bank v. Gancayco, rendered
on September 30, 1966, 11 we upheld the judgment of the Trial
Court "sustaining the power of the defendants (special
prosecutors of the Department of Justice) to compel the
disclosure (by PNB) of bank accounts of ACCFA Administrator
Jimenez (then under investigation for unexplained wealth), .. (it
being ruled) that, by enacting section 8 of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Congress clearly intended to provide an
additional ground for the examination of bank deposits .. (for)
without such provision, the .. prosecutors would be hampered if
not altogether frustrated in the prosection of those charged with
having acquired unexplained wealth while in public office. 12 We
ourselves declared in said case that 13

.. while Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are
"absolutely confidential .. and [therefore] may not be examined,
inquired or looked into," except in those cases enumerated
therein, the Anti-Graft Law directs in mandatory terms that bank
deposits "shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of
this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the
contrary." The only conclusion possible is that section 8 of the
Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend section 2 of Republic Act No.
1405 by providing an additional exception to the rule against the
disclosure of bank desposits.
xxx xxx xxx

the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where petitioner is the


branch manager.
The order 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.
Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how she would comply
with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly RA. No.
1405.
Issue:

14

... Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery


or dereliction of duty 15 and no reason is seen why these two
classes of cases cannot be excepted from the rule making bank
deposits confidential.
To sustain the petitioner's theory, and restrict the inquiry only to
property held by or in the name of the government official or
employee, or his spouse and unmarried children is unwarranted
in the light of the provisions of the statutes in question, and
would make available to persons in government who illegally
acquire property an easy and fool-proof means of evading
investigation and prosecution; all they would have to do would be
to simply place the property in the possession or name of
persons other than their spouse and unmarried children. This is
an absurdity that we will not ascribe to the lawmakers
8.) Marquez vs. Desierto
Facts:
Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered petitioner Marquez to
produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in
camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of

Whether 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 (R.A. No.1405).
Held:
No. 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 account holder must be notified to be present during the
inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account
identified in the pending case
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 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 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that
"Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended,
declares bank deposits to be "absolutely confidential" except:
(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 exclusive use of the bank,
(3) Upon written permission of the depositor,

(4) In cases of impeachment,


(5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials, or
(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject
matter of the litigation".27
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. 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.

------ Specific requirements on a Ombudsmans


1.) Only in camera inspection is allowed,
2.) There must be pending case before a court of competent
jurisdiction,
3.) The account must be clearly identified,
4.) The inspection is limited to the account subject of the court case,
and
5.) The bank personnel is limited to the account holder must be
notified to be present during the inspection