Manosa, a newspaper columnist, while making a deposit in a bank, overheard a pretty bank teller informing a co-

employee that Gigi, a well known public official, has just a few hundred pesos in her bank account and that her
next check will in all probability bounce. Manosa wrote this information in his newspaper column. Thus, Gigi filed a
complaint with the City Fiscal of Manila for unlawfully disclosing information about her bank account.

a) Will the said suit prosper? Explain your answer.

b) Supposing that Gigi is charged with unlawfully acquiring wealth under RA 1379 and that the fiscal issued a
subpoena duces tecum for the records of the bank account of Gigi. May Gigi validly oppose the said issuance on the
ground that the same violates the law on secrecy of bank deposits? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act prohibits, subject to its exclusionary clauses, any person from examining,
inquiring or looking into all deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines which
by law are declared “absolutely confidential” in nature. Manosa who merely overheard what appeared to be a
vague remark of a Bank employee to a co-employee and writing the same in his newspaper column is neither the
inquiry nor disclosure contemplated by law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) The complaint against Manosa will not prosper because merely writing a vague remark of a Bank employee to a
co-employee is not the disclosure contemplated by law. If anyone should be liable, it will be the bank employee
who disclosed the information.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Among the instances excepted from the coverage of the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act are Anti-graft cases.
Hence Gigi may not validly oppose the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for the bank records on her.

GP is a suspected jueteng lord who is rumored to be enjoying police and military protection. The envy of many
drug lords who had not escaped the dragnet of the law, GP was summoned to a hearing of the Committee on
Racketeering and Other Syndicated Crimes of the House of Representatives, which was conducting a congressional
investigation “in aid of legislation” on the involvement of police and military personnel, and possibly even of local
government officials, in the illegal activities of suspected gambling and drug lords. Subpoenaed to attend the
investigation were officers of certain identified banks with a directive to them to bring the records and documents
of bank deposits of individuals mentioned in the subpoenas, among them GP. GP and the banks opposed the
production of the banks’ records of deposits on the ground that no such inquiry is allowed under the Law on
Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405 as amended). Is the opposition of GP and the banks valid? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The opposition is valid. GP is not a public official. The investigation does not involve one of the exceptions to
the prohibition against disclosure of any information concerning bank deposits under the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits. The Committee conducting the investigation is not a competent court or the Ombudsman authorized
under the law to issue a subpoena for the production of the bank record involving such disclosure.

No.III. From his first term in 2007, Congressman Abner has been endorsing his pork barrel allocations to Twin
Rivers in exchange for a commission of 40% of the face value of the allocation. Twin Rivers is a non-governmental
organization whose supporting papers, after audit, were found by the Commission on Audit to be fictitious. Other
than to prepare and submit falsifies papers to support the encashment of the pork barrel checks, Twin Rivers does
not appear to have done anything on the endorsed projects and Congressman Abner likewise does not appear to
have bothered to monitor the progress of the project he endorsed. The congressmen converted most of the
commissions he generated into US dollars, and deposited these in a foreign currency account with Banco de Plata
(BDP). Based on amply-supported tips given by a congressman from another political party, the Anti-Money
Laundering Council sent B DP an order: (1) to confirm Cong. Abner’s deposits with the bank and to provide details
of these deposits; and (2) to hold all withdrawals and other transactions involving the congressman’s bank
accounts. As counsel for BDP, would you advise the bank to comply with the order?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I shall advise Banco de Plata not to comply with the order of the Anti-Money Laundering
Council. It cannot inquire into the deposits of Congressman Abner, regardless of currency, without a bank
inquiry order from a competent court, because crimes involved are not kidnapping for ransom, violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, hijacking and other violations of Republic Act No. 6235, destructive arson,
murder, and terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism (Section 11 of Anti-Money Laundering Act).
The Anti-Money Laundering Council cannot order Banco de Plata to hold all withdrawals and other transactions
involving the accounts of Congressman Abner. It is the Court of Appeals which has the power to issue a freeze
order over the accounts upon petition of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (Anti-Money Laundering Act;
Republic v. Cabrini Green Ross, 489 SCRA 644

CDC maintained a savings account with CBank. On orders of the MM Regional Trial Court, the Sheriff garnished
P50,000 of his account, to satisfy the judgment in favor of his creditor, MO. CDC complained that the garnishment
violated the Law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits because the existence of his savings account was disclosed to the
public. (5%)
Is CDC's complaint meritorious or not? Reason briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. CDC's complaint is not meritorious. It was held in China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, 49 SCRA 355 (1973)
that peso deposits may be garnished and the depositary bank can comply with the order of garnishment without
violating the Law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Execution is the goal of litigation as it is its fruit. Garnishment is
part of the execution process. Upon service of the notice of garnishment on the bank where the defendant
deposited funds, such funds become part of the subject matter of litigation.

Michael withdrew without authority funds of the partnership in the amounts of P500th and US$50th for services
he claims he rendered for the benefit of the partnership. He deposited the P500th in his personal peso current
account with Prosperity Bank and the US$50th in his personal foreign currency savings account with Eastern Bank.
The partnership instituted an action in court against Michael, Prosperity, and Eastern to compel Michael to return
the subject funds to the partnership and pending litigation to order both banks to disallow any withdrawal from his
accounts.

At the initial hearing of the case the court ordered Prosperity to produce the records of Michael’s peso current
account, and Eastern to produce the records of his foreign currency savings account.

Can the court compel Prosperity and Eastern to disclose the bank deposits of Michael? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as far as the peso account is concerned. Sec 2 of RA 1405 allows the disclosure of bank deposits in case where
the money deposited is the subject matter of litigation. Since the case filed against Michael is aimed at recovering
the amount he withdrew from the funds of the partnership, which amount he allegedly deposited in his account, a
disclosure of his bank deposits would be proper.

No, with respect to the foreign currency account. Under the Foreign Currency Law, the exemption to the
prohibition against disclosure of information concerning bank deposits is the written consent of the depositor.