Marquez v. Disierto

Facts:

Marquez received an Order from Ombudsman Desierto to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where petitioner is the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected are involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et al.

The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts is a trail managers checks purchased by one George Trivinio, a respondent in OMB-097-0411, pending with the office of the Ombudsman.

It would appear that Mr. George Trivinio purchased 51 Managers Checks (MCs) at Traders Royal Bank, United Nations Avenue branch. Out of the 51 MCs, 11 MCs were deposited and credited to an account maintained at the Union Bank, Julia Vargas Branch.

The FFIB panel met in conference with petitioner Lourdes T. Marquez and Atty. Fe B. Macalino at the bank's  main office, Ayala Avenue, Makati City for the purpose of allowing petitioner and Atty. Macalino to view the checks furnished by Traders Royal Bank. After convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks, Atty. Macalino advised Ms. Marquez to comply with the order of the Ombudsman. Petitioner agreed to an in camera inspection.

However, petitioner wrote the Ombudsman explaining to him that the accounts in question cannot readily be identified and asked for time to respond to the order. The reason forwarded by the petitioner was that "despite diligent efforts and from the accounts numbers presented, we cannot identify these accounts since the checks are issued in cash or bearer. We surmised that these accounts have long been dormant, hence are not covered by the new account number generated by the Union Bank system. We therefore have to verify from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of these accounts.

The Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank documents relative to accounts in issue.

Petitioner together with Union Bank of the Philippines, filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunctions with the RTC Makati against the Ombudsman.

Petitioner prayed for a TRO because the Ombudsman and the other persons acting under his authority were continuously harassing her to produce the bank documents relatives to the accounts in question. Moreover, on June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman issued another order stating that unless petitioner appeared before the FFIB with the documents requested, petitioner manager would be charged with indirect contempt and obstruction of justice.

The TRO was denied.

The petitioner filed an MR and the Ombudsman filed a Motion to dismiss. Both were denied.

Petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by Agapito B. Rosales, Director, Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB).

Petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an MR but was denied.

Issue:

Whether or not 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:

An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (R.A. No.1405) would reveal the following exceptions:

1. Where the depositor consents in writing;

2. Impeachment case;

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

4. Deposit is subject of litigation;

5. Sec. 8, R.A. No.3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of PNB vs. Gancayco.

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.

The Court ruled 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. CA, the Court 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".

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.

Zone of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that" [e]very person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons" and punishes as actionable torts several acts for meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The Revised Penal Code makes a crime of the violation of secrets by an officer, revelation of trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to dwelling. Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the Anti-Wiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, and the Intellectual Property Code.