6/23/2016

G.R.No.135882

TodayisThursday,June23,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.135882June27,2001
LOURDEST.MARQUEZ,inhercapacityasBranchManager,UNIONBANKOFTHEPHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLEANIANOA.DESIERTO,inhiscapacityasOMBUDSMAN,ANGELC.MAYORALGO,JR.,MARY
ANNCORPUZMANALACANDJOSET.DEJESUS,JR.,intheircapacityasChairmanandMembersofthe
Panel,respectively,respondents.
PARDO,J.:
Inthepetitionatbar,petitionerseeksto
a. Annul and set aside, for having been issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, respondents' order dated September 7, 1998 in OMB097
0411, In Re: Motion to Cite Lourdes T. Marquez for indirect contempt, received by counsel of September
9,1998, and their order dated October 14,1998, denying Marquez's motion for reconsideration dated
September10,1998,receivedbycounselonOctober20,1998.
b. Prohibit respondents from implementing their order dated October 14, 1998, in proceeding with the
hearing of the motion to cite Marquez for indirect contempt, through the issuance by this Court of a
temporaryrestrainingorderand/orpreliminaryinjunction.1
Theantecedentfactsareasfollows:
Sometime in May 1998, petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto dated
April 29, 1998, 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.TheaccountstobeinspectedareAccountNos.01137270,240020718,245303173and24530318
1, involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, FactFinding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v.
AmadoLagdameo,etal.Theorderfurtherstates:
"ItisworthmentioningthatthepoweroftheOmbudsmantoinvestigateandtorequiretheproductionand
inspection of records and documents is sanctioned by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Republic Act No.
6770,otherwiseknownasOmbudsmanActof1989andunderexistingjurisprudenceonthematter.Itmust
be noted that R.A. 6770 especially Section 15 thereof provides, among others, the following powers,
functionsanddutiesoftheOmbudsman,towit:
xxx
(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena duces tecum and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry,
includingthepowertoexamineandhaveaccesstobanksaccountsandrecords
(9)PunishforcontemptinaccordancewiththeRulesofCourtandunderthesameprocedureandwiththe
samepenaltiesprovidedtherein.
Clearly, the specific provision of R.A. 6770, a later legislation, modifies the law on the Secrecy of Bank
Deposits (R.A.1405) and places the office of the Ombudsman in the same footing as the courts of law in
thisregard."2
The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an incamerainspection of the accounts is a trail managers checks
purchasedbyoneGeorgeTrivinio,arespondentinOMB0970411,pendingwiththeofficeoftheOmbudsman.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_135882_2001.html

1/5

6/23/2016

G.R.No.135882

ItwouldappearthatMr.GeorgeTrivinio,purchasedfiftyone(51)ManagersChecks(MCs)foratotalamountof
P272.1MillionatTradersRoyalBank,UnitedNationsAvenuebranch,onMay2and3,1995.Outofthe51MCs,
eleven (11) MCs in the amount of P70.6 million, were deposited and credited to an account maintained at the
UnionBank,JuliaVargasBranch.3
OnMay26,1998,theFFIBpanelmetinconferencewithpetitionerLourdesT.MarquezandAtty.FeB.Macalino
atthebank'smainoffice,AyalaAvenue,MakatiCity.Themeetingwasforthepurposeofallowingpetitionerand
Atty.MacalinotoviewthechecksfurnishedbyTradersRoyalBank.Afterconvincingthemselvesoftheveracityof
thechecks,Atty.MacalinoadvisedMs.MarqueztocomplywiththeorderoftheOmbudsman.Petitioneragreedto
anincamerainspectionsetonJune3,1998.4
However, on June 4,1998, petitioner wrote the Ombudsman explaining to him that the accounts in question
cannotreadilybeidentifiedandaskedfortimetorespondtotheorder.Thereasonforwardedbythepetitioner
wasthat"despitediligenteffortsandfromtheaccountsnumberspresented,wecannotidentifytheseaccounts
sincethechecksareissuedincashorbearer.Wesurmisedthattheseaccountshavelongbeendormant,hence
arenotcoveredbythenewaccountnumbergeneratedbytheUnionBanksystem.Wethereforehavetoverify
fromtheInterbankrecordsarchivesforthewhereaboutsoftheseaccounts.5
TheOmbudsman,respondingtotherequestofthepetitionerfortimetocomplywiththeorder,stated:"firstly,it
must be emphasized that Union Bank, Julia Vargas Branch was depositary bank of the subject Traders Royal
BankManager'sCheck(MCs),asshownatitsdorsalportionandasclearedbythePhilippinesClearingHouse,
nottheInternationalCorporateBank.
Notwithstanding the facts that the checks were payable to cash or bearer, nonetheless, the name of the
depositor(s) could easily be identified since the account numbers x x x where said checks were deposited are
identifiedintheorder.
Evenassumingthattheaccountsxxxwerealreadyclassifiedas"dormantaccounts,"thebankisstillrequiredto
preserve the records pertaining to the accounts within a certain period of time as required by existing banking
rulesandregulations.
And finally, the in camera inspection was already extended twice from May 13, 1998 to June 3,1998 thereby
givingthebankenoughtimewithinwhichtosufficientlycomplywiththeorder."6
Thus, on June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank documents
relativetoaccountsinissue.Theorderstates:
Viewedfromtheforegoing,yourpersistentrefusaltocomplywithOmbudsman'sorderinunjustified,andis
merelyintendedtodelaytheinvestigationofthecase.Youractconstitutesdisobedienceoforresistanceto
alawfulorderissuedbythisofficeandispunishableasIndirectContemptunderSection3(b)ofR.A.6770.
ThesamemayalsoconstituteobstructioninthelawfulexerciseofthefunctionsoftheOmbudsmanwhich
ispunishableunderSection36ofR.A.6770.7
On July 10,1998, petitioner together with Union Bank of the Philippines, filed a petition for declaratory relief,
prohibitionandinjunctions8withtheRegionalTrialCourt,MakatiCity,againsttheOmbudsman.
Thepetitionwasintendedtocleartherightsanddutiesofpetitioner.Thus,petitionersoughtadeclarationofher
rightsfromthecourtduetotheclearconflictbetweenRANo.6770,Section15andR.A.No.1405,Sections2and
3.
Petitionerprayedforatemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO)becausetheOmbudsmanandtheotherpersonsacting
underhisauthoritywerecontinuouslyharassinghertoproducethebankdocumentsrelativestotheaccountsin
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
contemptandobstructionofjustice.
Inthemeantime,9onJuly14,1998,thelowercourtdeniedpetitioner'sprayerforatemporaryrestrainingorder
andstatedus:
"After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court finds the application for a Temporary Restraining
Ordertobewithoutmerit.
"Sincetheapplicationpraysforrestraintoftherespondent,intheexerciseofhiscontemptpowersunder
Section15(9)inrelationtoparagraph(8)ofRA.6770,knownas"TheOmbudsmanActof1989",thereis
no great or irreparable injury from which petitioners may suffer, if respondent is not so restrained.
Respondentshouldhedecidetoexercisehiscontemptpowerswouldstillhavetoapplywiththecourt.xxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_135882_2001.html

2/5

6/23/2016

G.R.No.135882

Anyone who, without lawful excuse x x x refuses to produce documents for inspection, when thereunto
lawfullyrequiredshallbesubjecttodisciplineasincaseofcontemptofCourtanduponapplicationofthe
individual or body exercising the power in question shall be dealt with by the Judge of the First Instance
(now RTC) having jurisdiction of the case in a manner provided by the law (section 580 of the Revised
Administrative Code). Under the present Constitution only judges may issue warrants, hence, respondent
should apply with the Court for the issuance of the warrant needed for the enforcement of his contempt
orders.Itisintheseproceedingswherepetitionermayquestiontheproprietyofrespondent'sexerciseof
hiscontemptpowers.Petitionersarenotthereforeleftwithoutanyadequateremedy.
"The questioned orders were issued with the investigation of the case of FactFinding and Intelligence
Bureauvs.AmadoLagdameo,et.al.,OMB0970411,forviolationofRA.3019.Sincepetitionerfailedto
showprimafacieevidencethatthesubjectmatteroftheinvestigationisoutsidethejurisdictionoftheOffice
oftheOmbudsman,nowritofinjunctionmaybeissuedbythisCourttodelaythisinvestigationpursuantto
section14ofOmbudsmanActof1989."10
OnJuly20,1998,petitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationbasedonthefollowinggrounds:
a.Petitioners'applicationforfiledTemporaryRestrainingOrderisnotonlytorestraintheOmbudsmanfrom
exercising his contempt powers, but to stop him from implementing his Orders dated April 29, 1998 and
June16,1998:and
b.ThesubjectmatteroftheinvestigationbeingconductedbytheOmbudsmanatpetitioners'premisesis
outsidehisjurisdiction.11
OnJuly23,1998,theOmbudsmanfiledamotiontodismissthepetitionfordeclaratoryrelief12onthegroundthat
the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to hear a petition for relief from the findings and orders of the
Ombudsman,citingR.A.No.6770,Sections14and27.OnAugust7,1998,theOmbudsmanfiledanopposition
topetitioner'smotionforreconsiderationdatedJuly20,1998.13
OnAugust19,1998,thelowercourtdeniedpetitioner'smotionforreconsideration,14andalsotheOmbudsman's
motiontodismiss.15
OnAugust21,1998,petitionerreceivedacopyofthemotiontociteherforcontempt,filedwiththeOfficeofthe
OmbudsmanbyAgapitoB.Rosales,Director,FactFindingandIntelligenceBureau(FFIB).16
OnAugust31,1998,petitionerfiledwiththeOmbudsmananoppositiontothemotiontociteherincontempton
the ground that the filing thereof was premature due to the petition pending in the lower court.17 Petitioner
likewisereiteratedthatshehadnointentiontodisobeytheordersoftheOmbudsman.However,shewantedtobe
clarifiedastohowshewouldcomplywiththeorderswithoutherbreakinganylaw,particularlyRA.No.1405.18
Respondent Ombudsman panel set the incident for hearing on September 7, 1998.19 After hearing, the panel
issued an order dated September 7, 1998, ordering petitioner and counsel to appear for a continuation of the
hearingofthecontemptchargesagainsther.20
OnSeptember10,1998,petitionerfiledwiththeOmbudsmanamotionforreconsiderationoftheaboveorder.21
HermotionwaspremisedonthefactthattherewasapendingcasewiththeRegionalTrialCourt,MakatiCity,22
which would determine whether obeying the orders of the Ombudsman to produce bank documents would not
violateanylaw.
The FFIB opposed the motion,23 and on October 14, 1998, the Ombudsman denied the motion by order the
dispositiveportionofwhichreads:
"Wherefore, respondent Lourdes T. Marquez's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for lack of
merit. Let the hearing of the motion of the Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to cite her for indirect
contempt to be intransferrably set to 29 October 1998 at 2:00 o'clock p.m. at which date and time she
should appear personally to submit her additional evidence. Failure to do so shall be deemed a waiver
thereof."24
Hence,thepresentpetition.25
The issue is whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce the documents
requestedbytheOmbudsman.AndwhethertheorderoftheOmbudsmantohaveanincamerainspectionofthe
questionedaccountisallowedasanexceptiontothelawonsecrecyofbankdeposits(R.A.No.1405).
Anexaminationofthesecrecyofbankdepositslaw(R.A.No.1405)wouldrevealthefollowingexceptions:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_135882_2001.html

3/5

6/23/2016

G.R.No.135882

1.Wherethedepositorconsentsinwriting
2.Impeachmentcase
3.Bycourtorderinbriberyorderelictionofdutycasesagainstpublicofficials
4.Depositissubjectoflitigation
5.Sec.8,R.A.No.3019,incasesofunexplainedwealthasheldinthecaseofPNBvs.Gancayco.26
TheorderoftheOmbudsmantoproduceforincamerainspectionthesubjectaccountswiththeUnionBankof
thePhilippines,JuliaVargasBranch,isbasedonapendinginvestigationattheOfficeoftheOmbudsmanagainst
AmadoLagdameo,et.al.forviolationofR.A.No.3019,Sec.3(e)and(g)relativetotheJointVentureAgreement
betweenthePublicEstatesAuthorityandAMARI.
We rule that before an incamerainspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of
competentjurisdiction.Further,theaccountmustbeclearlyidentified,theinspectionlimitedtothesubjectmatter
ofthependingcasebeforethecourtofcompetentjurisdiction.Thebankpersonnelandtheaccountholdermust
benotifiedtobepresentduringtheinspection,andsuchinspectionmaycoveronlytheaccountidentifiedinthe
pendingcase.
In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that "Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank
Deposits,asamended,declaresbankdepositstobe"absolutelyconfidential"except:
(1)Inanexaminationmadeinthecourseofaspecialorgeneralexaminationofabankthatisspecifically
authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a
bankfraudorseriousirregularityhasbeenorisbeingcommittedandthatitisnecessarytolookintothe
deposittoestablishsuchfraudorirregularity,
(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
useofthebank,
(3)Uponwrittenpermissionofthedepositor,
(4)Incasesofimpeachment,
(5)Uponorderofacompetentcourtincasesofbriberyorderelictionofdutyofpublicofficials,or
(6)Incaseswherethemoneydepositedorinvestedisthesubjectmatterofthelitigation".27
Inthecaseatbar,thereisyetnopendinglitigationbeforeanycourtofcompetentauthority.Whatisexistingisan
investigationbytheOfficeoftheOmbudsman.Inshort,whattheofficeoftheombudsmanwouldwishtodoisto
fishforadditionalevidencetoformallychargeAmadoLagdameo,et.al.,withtheSandiganbayan.Clearly,there
wasnopendingcaseincourtwhichwouldwarranttheopeningofthebankaccountforinspection.
Zone of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that" [e]very person shall
respectthedignity,personality,privacyandpeaceofmindofhisneighborsandotherpersons"andpunishesas
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,andrecognizestheprivacyoflettersandotherprivatecommunications.TheRevisedPenalCodemakes
acrimeoftheviolationofsecretsbyanofficer,revelationoftradeandindustrialsecrets,andtrespasstodwelling.
Invasion of privacy is an offense in special laws like the AntiWiretapping Law, the Secrecy of Bank Deposits
Act,andtheIntellectualPropertyCode.28
INVIEWWHEREOF,weGRANTthepetition.WeordertheOmbudsmantoceaseanddesistfromrequiringUnion
BankManagerLourdesT.Marquez,oranyoneinherplacetocomplywiththeorderdatedOctober14,1998,and
similarorders.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.

1 w p h i1 .n t

Davide, Jr:, C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga
Reyes,YnaresSantiago,DeLeon.Jr.,andSandovalGutierrez,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_135882_2001.html

4/5

6/23/2016

G.R.No.135882

1Petition,Rollo,pp.829.
2Ibid.,p.10.
3Ibid.
4MotiontoCiteLOURDEST.MARQUEZ,UnionBankJuliaVargasBranchManagerforIndirectContempt,

Rollo,pp.7980,atp.80.
5Petition,Annex"D",LetterofMs.LourdesMarquez,Rollo,pp.3940.
6Ibid.,Annex"E",Order,pp.4142.
7Ibid.
8Docketed as Civil Case No. 981585, Union Bank of the Philippines and Lourdes T. Marquez vs. Hon.

AnianoA.Desierto,inhiscapacityasOmbudsman.
9Petition,Annex"G",OrderdatedJuly14,1998inCivilCaseNo.981585Rollo,pp.5455.
10Ibid.,p.12.
11Petition,Annex"H",Rollo,pp.5665.
12Ibid.,Annex"I",Rollo,pp.6670.
13Ibid.,Annex"J",Rollo,pp.7176.
14Ibid.,Annex"K",Rollo,p.77.
15Ibid.,Annex"L",Rollo,p.78.
16Ibid.,Rollo,p.13.
17InCivilCaseNo.981585.
18Ibid.,Rollo,p.13.
19Ibid.,Rollo,p.14.
20Petition,Annex"A",Rollo,pp.3032.
21Petition,Annex"O",Rollo,pp.8892.
22InCivilCaseNo.981585.
23Petition,Annex"P",Rollo,pp.9397.
24Petition,Annex"B",Rollo,pp.3334.
25FiledOnOctober28,1998,Petition,Rollo,pp.826.OnNovember16,1998,werequiredrespondentsto

comment on the petition (Rollo, p. 98). On March 26, 1999, respondents filed their comment (Rollo, pp.
116132).Wenowgiveduecoursetothepetition.
26PhilippineNationalBankvs.Gancayco,122Phil.503,508[1965].
27UnionBankofthePhilippinesvs.CourtofAppeals,321SCRA563,564565[1999].
280plevs.Torres,354Phil.948,973974[1998].
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/jun2001/gr_135882_2001.html

5/5