G.R. No. 135882June 27, 2001 MARQUEZ VS.

DESIERTO FACTS: Petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at Union Bank of thePhilippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where she is the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected were involvedin a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v. AmadoLagdameo, et al. The basis of the Ombudsman ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts is a trail managers checkspurchased by one George Trivinio, a respondent in OMB-0970411, pending with the office of the Ombudsmanby virtue of its power to investigate and to require the production and inspection of records and documentsgranted to it by RA No.6770. The Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank documents relative to accounts inissue in line of her persistent refusal to comply with Ombudsman's order which they sais as an unjustified, andis merely intended to delay the investigation of the case; constitutes disobedience of or resistance to a lawfulorder issued by this office punishable as Indirect under R.A. 6770. Petitioner together with Union Bank of the Philippines filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunctions with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, against the Ombudsman. The lower court denied petitioner's petition. On August 21, 1998, 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 opposition to the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground thatcompliance with the Ombudsmans orders would be in violation of RA. No. 1405.But petitioners motion for reconsideration was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. ISSUE: Whether or not an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law onsecrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405) HELD:

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 accountholder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case. In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. Whats 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. 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 `

Salvacion v. Central Bank, 278 SCRA 27 (1997) FACTS: -Greg Bartelli, an American tourist coaxed and lured Karen Salvacion, 12 years old to go with him to his apartment and raped her there for several times.-However, Bartelli was able to escape from jail and avoid punishment.-The criminal cases were archived pending the arrest of Bartelli.-On the other hand, Karen received a favorable judgment in the civil case for damage-After the decision of the trial court become final, Karen tried to execute on Bartellis dollar account with China Banking Corporation.-Accordingly, the sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment on China Banking.-China Banking invoked Section 113 of CB Circular 960 to the effect that the dollar deposits of Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.-Upon inquiry with CB on whether Sec 113 of CB Circular 960 has any exception, CB responded that the provisions ABSOLUTE, the purpose being to encourage dollar accounts within the countrys banking system which would help in the development of the economy and that there is no intention to render futile the basic rights of a person, but it is the law though the law maybe harsh as some perceive it. Compliance is still enjoined.-Hence, this petition for declaratory relief. ISSUE: -Whether or not the peculiar circumstances of the case warrants the execution on the foreign currency account despite the exemption from court processes under RA 6426. HELD: -The provisions of Sec 113 of CB circular 960 and PD 1246, in so far as it amends Section 8 of RA 6426 are inapplicable to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. CBC is required to comply with the writ of execution and release to Karen the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount would satisfy the judgment. -Provisions of The application of the law depend on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any other order

or process of any court. Legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient, injustice would result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail .Ninguno non deue enriquecerse tortizerzmente con damo de otro. Simply stated, when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience. -It is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at a time when the countrys 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 as the case before us.-It would be unthinkable, that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank No. 960 would be used as a device by accused Greg Bartelli for wrongdoing, and in so doing, acquitting the guilty at the expense of the innocent.-Call it what it may but is there no conflict of legal policy here? Dollar against Peso? Upholding the final and executory judgment of the lower court against the Central Bank Circular protecting the foreign depositor? Shielding or protecting the dollar deposit of a transient alien depositor against injustice to a national and victim of a crime? This situation calls for fairness against legal tyranny