G.R. No.

L-18343
.gsc-control-cse { font-family: Arial, sans-serif;
border-color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; } .gsc-control-cse
.gsc-table-result { font-family: Arial, sans-serif; } input.gsc-input,
.gsc-input-box, .gsc-input-box-hover, .gsc-input-box-focus { border-color:
#D9D9D9; } input.gsc-search-button, input.gsc-search-button:hover,
input.gsc-search-button:focus { border-color: #666666; background-color:
#CECECE; background-image: none; filter: none; } .gsc-tabHeader.gsc-tabhInactive
{ border-color: #E9E9E9; background-color: #E9E9E9; }
.gsc-tabHeader.gsc-tabhActive { border-color: #FF9900; border-bottom-color:
#FFFFFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; } .gsc-tabsArea { border-color: #FF9900; }
.gsc-webResult.gsc-result, .gsc-results .gsc-imageResult { border-color:
#FFFFFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; } .gsc-webResult.gsc-result:hover,
.gsc-imageResult:hover { border-color: #FFFFFF; background-color: #FFFFFF; }
.gs-webResult.gs-result a.gs-title:link, .gs-webResult.gs-result
a.gs-title:link b, .gs-imageResult a.gs-title:link, .gs-imageResult
a.gs-title:link b { color: #0000CC; } .gs-webResult.gs-result
a.gs-title:visited, .gs-webResult.gs-result a.gs-title:visited b,
.gs-imageResult a.gs-title:visited, .gs-imageResult a.gs-title:visited b {
color: #0000CC; } .gs-webResult.gs-result a.gs-title:hover,
.gs-webResult.gs-result a.gs-title:hover b, .gs-imageResult a.gs-title:hover,
.gs-imageResult a.gs-title:hover b { color: #0000CC; } .gs-webResult.gs-result
a.gs-title:active, .gs-webResult.gs-result a.gs-title:active b, .gs-imageResult
a.gs-title:active, .gs-imageResult a.gs-title:active b { color: #0000CC; }
.gsc-cursor-page { color: #0000CC; } a.gsc-trailing-more-results:link { color:
#0000CC; } .gs-webResult .gs-snippet, .gs-imageResult .gs-snippet,
.gs-fileFormatType { color: #000000; } .gs-webResult div.gs-visibleUrl,
.gs-imageResult div.gs-visibleUrl { color: #008000; } .gs-webResult
div.gs-visibleUrl-short { color: #008000; } .gs-webResult
div.gs-visibleUrl-short { display: none; } .gs-webResult div.gs-visibleUrl-long
{ display: block; } .gs-promotion div.gs-visibleUrl-short { display: none; }
.gs-promotion div.gs-visibleUrl-long { display: block; } .gsc-cursor-box {
border-color: #FFFFFF; } .gsc-results .gsc-cursor-box .gsc-cursor-page {
border-color: #E9E9E9; background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #0000CC; }
.gsc-results .gsc-cursor-box .gsc-cursor-current-page { border-color: #FF9900;
background-color: #FFFFFF; color: #0000CC; }
.gsc-webResult.gsc-result.gsc-promotion { border-color: #336699;
background-color: #FFFFFF; } .gsc-completion-title { color: #0000CC; }
.gsc-completion-snippet { color: #000000; } .gs-promotion a.gs-title:link,
.gs-promotion a.gs-title:link *, .gs-promotion .gs-snippet a:link { color:
#0000CC; } .gs-promotion a.gs-title:visited, .gs-promotion a.gs-title:visited *,
.gs-promotion .gs-snippet a:visited { color: #0000CC; } .gs-promotion
a.gs-title:hover, .gs-promotion a.gs-title:hover *, .gs-promotion .gs-snippet
a:hover { color: #0000CC; } .gs-promotion a.gs-title:active, .gs-promotion
a.gs-title:active *, .gs-promotion .gs-snippet a:active { color: #0000CC; }
.gs-promotion .gs-snippet, .gs-promotion .gs-title .gs-promotion-title-right,
.gs-promotion .gs-title .gs-promotion-title-right * { color: #000000; }
.gs-promotion .gs-visibleUrl, .gs-promotion .gs-visibleUrl-short { color:
#008000; }.gscb_a{display:inline-block;font:27px/13px arial,sans-serif}.gsst_a
.gscb_a{color:#a1b9ed;cursor:pointer}.gsst_a:hover .gscb_a,.gsst_a:focus
.gscb_a{color:#36c}.gsst_a{display:inline-block}.gsst_a{cursor:pointer;padding:0
4px}.gsst_a:hover{text-decoration:none!important}.gsst_b{font-size:16px;padding:
0g
2px;position:relative;user-select:none;-ms-user-select:none;white-space:nowrap}.
gsst_e{opacity:0.55;}.gsst_a:hovere
.gsst_e,.gsst_a:focus .gsst_e{opacity:0.72;}.gsst_a:active
.gsst_e{opacity:1;}.gsst_f{background:white;text-align:left}.gsst_g{background-c
olor:white;border:1pxC
solid #ccc;border-top-color:#d9d9d9;box-shadow:0 2px 4px

rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-ms-box-shadow:0 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.2);margin:-1px

-3px;padding:0
6px}.gsst_h{background-color:white;height:1px;margin-bottom:-1px;position:relati
ve;top:-1px}.gsib_a{width:100%;padding:4pxr
6px
0}.gsib_a,.gsib_b{vertical-align:top}.gssb_c{border:0;position:absolute;z-index:
989}.gssb_e{border:1pxi
solid #ccc;border-top-color:#d9d9d9;box-shadow:0 2px 4px
rgba(0,0,0,0.2);-ms-box-shadow:0 2px 4px
rgba(0,0,0,0.2);cursor:default}.gssb_f{visibility:hidden;white-space:nowrap}.gss
b_k{border:0;display:block;position:absolute;top:0;z-index:988}.gsdd_a{border:no
ne!important}.gsq_a{padding:0}.gscsep_a{display:none}.gssb_a{padding:0:
7px}.gssb_a,.gssb_a
td{white-space:nowrap;overflow:hidden;line-height:22px}#gssb_b{font-size:11px;co
lor:#36c;text-decoration:none}#gssb_b:hover{font-size:11px;color:#36c;text-decor
ation:underline}.gssb_g{text-align:center;padding:8px2
0
7px;position:relative}.gssb_h{font-size:15px;height:28px;margin:0.2em}.gssb_i{ba
ckground:#eee}.gss_ifl{visibility:hidden;padding-left:5px}.gssb_i:
.gss_ifl{visibility:visible}a.gssb_j{font-size:13px;color:#36c;text-decoration:n
one;line-height:100%}a.gssb_j:hover{text-decoration:underline}.gssb_l{height:1px
;background-color:#e5e5e5}.gssb_m{color:#000;background:#fff}.gsfe_a{border:1px}
solid #b9b9b9;border-top-color:#a0a0a0;box-shadow:inset 0px 1px 2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.1);-moz-box-shadow:inset 0px 1px 2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.1);-webkit-box-shadow:inset 0px 1px 2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.1);}.gsfe_b{border:1px solid #4d90fe;outline:none;box-shadow:inset
0px 1px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.3);-moz-box-shadow:inset 0px 1px 2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.3);-webkit-box-shadow:inset 0px 1px 2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.3);}.gssb_a{padding:0
9px}.gsib_a{padding-right:8px;padding-left:8px}.gsst_a{padding-top:3px}.gssb_e{b
order:0}.gssb_l{margin:5pxl
0}.gssb_c
.gsc-completion-container{position:static}.gssb_c{z-index:5000}.gsc-completion-c
ontainers
table{background:transparent;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit}.gssb_c >
tbody > tr,.gssb_c > tbody > tr > td,.gssb_d,.gssb_d > tbody > tr,.gssb_d >
tbody > tr > td,.gssb_e,.gssb_e > tbody > tr,.gssb_e > tbody > tr >
td{padding:0;margin:0;border:0}.gssb_a table,.gssb_a table tr,.gssb_a table tr
td{padding:0;margin:0;border:0}
Today is Friday, August 14, 2015

powered by

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-18343

September 30, 1965

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, in his capacity as

President of the Philippine National Bank, plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
EMILIO A. GANCAYCO and FLORENTINO FLOR, Special Prosecutors of the Dept.
of Justice, defendants-appellees.
Ramon B. de los Reyes and Zoilo P. Perlas for plaintiffs-appellants.
Villamor & Gancayco for defendants-appellees.

REGALA, J.:
The principal question presented in this case is whether a bank can be
compelled to disclose the records of accounts of a depositor who is under
investigation for unexplained wealth.
This question arose when defendants Emilio A. Gancayco and Florentino
Flor, as special prosecutors of the Department of Justice, required the
plaintiff Philippine National Bank to produce at a hearing to be held at
10 a.m. on February 20, 1961 the records of the bank deposits of Ernesto
T. Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and
Cooperative Administration, who was then under investigation for
unexplained wealth. In declining to reveal its records, the plaintiff bank
invoked Republic Act No. 1405 which provides:
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 the litigation.
The plaintiff bank also called attention to the penal provision of the law
which reads:
SEC. 5. Any violation of this law will subject the 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.

On the other hand, the defendants cited the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) in support of their claim of
authority and demanded anew that plaintiff Eduardo Z. Romualdez, as bank
president, produce the records or he would be prosecuted for contempt. The
law invoked by the defendant states:
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 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.
Because of the threat of prosecution, plaintiffs filed an action for
declaratory judgment in the Manila Court of First Instance. After trial,
during which Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, author of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act testified, the court rendered judgment, sustaining
the power of the defendants to compel the disclosure of bank accounts of
ACCFA Administrator Jimenez. The court said 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. Without
such provision, the court added prosecutors would be hampered if not
altogether frustrated in the prosecution of those charged with having
acquired unexplained wealth while in public office.1awphl.nt
From that judgment, plaintiffs appealed to this Court. In brief,
plaintiffs' position is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law "simply means
that such bank deposits may be included or added to the assets of the
Government official or employee for the purpose of computing his
unexplained wealth if and when the same are discovered or revealed in the
manner authorized by Section 2 of Republic Act 1405, which are (1) Upon
written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment; (3) Upon
order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
public officials; and (4) In cases where the money deposited or invested
is the subject matter of the litigation."
In support of their position, plaintiffs contend, first, that the
Anti-Graft Law (which took effect on August 17, 1960) is a general law
which cannot be deemed to have impliedly repealed section 2 of Republic
Act No. 1405 (which took effect on Sept. 9, 1955), because of the rule
that repeals by implication are not favored. Second, they argue that to
construe section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law as allowing inquiry into bank
deposits would be to negate the policy expressed in section 1 of Republic
Act No. 1405 which is "to give encouragement to the people to deposit
their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so
that the same may be utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in

the economic development of the country."

Contrary to their claim that their position effects a reconciliation of
the provisions of the two laws, plaintiffs are actually making the
provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 prevail over those of the Anti-Graft
Law, because even without the latter law the balance standing to the
depositor's credit can be considered provided its disclosure is made in
any of the cases provided in Republic Act No. 1405.
The truth is that these laws are so repugnant to each other than no
reconciliation is possible. Thus, 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
additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits.
Indeed, it is said that if the new law is inconsistent with or repugnant
to the old law, the presumption against the intent to repeal by
implication is overthrown because the inconsistency or repugnancy reveals
an intent to repeal the existing law. And whether a statute, either in its
entirety or in part, has been repealed by implication is ultimately a
matter of legislative intent. (Crawford, The Construction of Statutes,
Secs. 309-310. Cf. Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Ass'n v. Feliciano, G.R.
No. L-24022, March 3, 1965).
The recent case of People v. De Venecia, G.R. No. L-20808, July 31, 1965
invites comparison with this case. There it was held:
The result is that although sec. 54 [Rev. Election Code] prohibits a
classified civil service employee from aiding any candidate, sec. 29
[Civil Service Act of 1959] allows such classified employee to express his
views on current political problems or issues, or to mention the name of
his candidate for public office, even if such expression of views or
mention of names may result in aiding one particular candidate. In other
words, the last paragraph of sec. 29 is an exception to sec. 54; at most,
an amendment to sec. 54.
With regard to the claim that disclosure would be contrary to the policy
making bank deposits confidential, it is enough to point out that while
section 2 of Republic Act 1405 declares bank deposits to be "absolutely
confidential," it nevertheless allows such disclosure in the following
instances: (1) Upon written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of
impeachment; (3) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or
dereliction of duty of public officials; (4) In cases where the money
deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Cases of unexplained
wealth are similar to cases of bribery or dereliction of duty and no
reason is seen why these two classes of cases cannot be excepted from the
rule making bank deposits confidential. The policy as to one cannot be
different from the policy as to the other. This policy express the motion
that a public office is a public trust and any person who enters upon its
discharge does so with the full knowledge that his life, so far as
relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without pronouncement

as to costs.
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo and Barrera, JJ., are on leave.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

Lawphil Main Menu

♦ Constitution
♦ Statutes
♦ Jurisprudence
♦ Judicial Issuances
♦ Executive Issuances
♦ Treatise
♦ Legal Link