[G.R. No. 200238. November 20, 2012.

PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK (PSBANK) and PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, as representative of

Philippine Savings Bank and in his personal capacity, petitioners, vs. SENATE IMPEACHMENT
COURT, consisting of the senators of the Republic of the Philippines acting as senator judges,
namely: JUAN PONCE ENRILE, JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA, VICENTE C. SOTTO III, ALAN
PETER S. CAYETANO, EDGARDO J. ANGARA, JOKER P. ARROYO, PIA S. CAYETANO, FRANKLIN
M. DRILON, FRANCIS G. ESCUDERO, TEOFISTO GUINGONA III, GREGORIO B. HONASAN II,
PANFILO M. LACSON, MANUEL M. LAPID, LOREN B. LEGARDA, FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR.,
SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, FRANCIS "KIKO" PANGILINAN, AQUILINO PIMENTEL III, RALPH G.
RECTO, RAMON REVILLA, JR., ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV, MANNY VILLAR; and THE
HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE PROSECUTION PANEL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
respondents.

RESOLUTION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J p:

Petitioners Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) and Pascual M. Garcia III, as President of PSBank, filed a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition seeking to nullify and set aside the Resolution 1 of respondent Senate of the Republic of the Philippines, sitting as an
Impeachment Court, which granted the prosecution's requests for subpoena duces tecum ad testificandum 2 to PSBank and/or its
representatives requiring them to testify and produce before the Impeachment Court documents relative to the foreign currency
accounts that were alleged to belong to then Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. DHECac

On November 5, 2012, and during the pendency of this petition, petitioners filed a Motion with Leave of Court to Withdraw the Petition
3 averring that subsequent events have overtaken the petition and that, with the termination of the impeachment proceedings against
former Chief Justice Corona, they are no longer faced with the dilemma of either violating Republic Act No. 6426 (RA 6426) or being
held in contempt of court for refusing to disclose the details of the subject foreign currency deposits.

It is well-settled that courts will not determine questions that have become moot and academic because there is no longer any
justiciable controversy to speak of. The judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the
nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 4 In Gancho-on v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 5 the Court ruled:

It is a rule of universal application that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not
consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And
where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, so that a declaration
thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioners
would be entitled and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. (Citations omitted)

Indeed, the main issue of whether the Impeachment Court acted arbitrarily when it issued the assailed subpoena to obtain information
concerning the subject foreign currency deposits notwithstanding the confidentiality of such deposits under RA 6426 has been
overtaken by events. The supervening conviction of Chief Justice Corona on May 29, 2012, as well as his execution of a waiver against
the confidentiality of all his bank accounts, whether in peso or foreign currency, has rendered the present petition moot and academic.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate to abstain from passing upon the merits of this case where legal relief is no
longer needed nor called for.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for having become moot and academic and the temporary restraining order issued by the
Court on February 9, 2012 is LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Reyes, JJ., are on official leave.

[G.R. No. 200238. February 9, 2012.]

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated February 9, 2012, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 200238 (Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal
capacity vs. Senate Impeachment Court consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges, namely
Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Edgardo J. Angara, Joker P. Arroyo, Pia S.
Cayetano, Franklin M. Drilon, Francis G. Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III, Gregorio B. Honasan II, Panfilo M. Lacson, Manuel M. Lapid,
Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmeña III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon
Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of
Representatives.). — Acting on the Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Court resolves to:

(a)REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on the petition NOT LATER THAN ten (10) days from receipt
hereof; and

(b)ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER in the petition, enjoining the respondents from
implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, issued
by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court against the Branch Manager (and/or An
Authorized Representative competent to testify on the matter herein stated), PSBANK,
Katipunan Branch.

Rule 57, Section 3 enumerates the ground for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction:

Section 3.Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be

granted when it is established:

(a)That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

(b)That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of

during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

(c)That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is

procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.

There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction:

(1)the right to be protected exists prima facie, and

(2)the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation
sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided
under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the
Philippines (RA 6426). This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits: 1

Section 8.Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. — All foreign currency deposits authorized under
this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD
No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and,
except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency
deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or
office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or
private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from
attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and
further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)

Under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is,
disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. 2 In Intengan v. Court of Appeals, 3
the Court ruled that where the accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is not
Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent case of Government Service Insurance System
v. 15th Division of the Court of Appeals, 4 the Court also held that RA 6426 is the applicable law for foreign
 currency deposits and not Republic Act No. 1405. In ruling that Westmont Bank cannot be compelled to
disclose the dollar deposits of Domsat Holdings, Inc., the Court ruled:

These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between
them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the
people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that
the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic
development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was
made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law
of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage
deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign
currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law.
Generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426
applies in this case. 5

The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of the depositor's right to privacy in relation to such
deposit. 6 In the present case, neither the prosecution nor the Impeachment Court has presented any such
written waiver by the alleged depositor, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while impeachment may be an
exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA 1405, it is not an exemption to the absolute
confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426.

Other cited authorities shall follow in the separate concurring and dissenting opinions the Justices will file."

Concurring — JJ. De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad, Villarama, Perez, Mendoza and Reyes — the Separate Concurring Opinions to
follow; Dissenting — JJ. Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo, Sereno and Bernabe — the Separate Dissenting Opinions to follow; Inhibiting —
Chief Justice Corona and Justice Velasco.

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court
ATTACHMENT
EN BANC
G.R. No. 200238
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK and PASCUAL M. GARCIA III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal capacity,
petitioners, vs. SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT, consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges,
namely Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Edgardo J. Angara, Joker P. Arroyo,
Pia S. Cayetano, Franklin M. Drilon, Francis G. Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III, Gregorio B. Honasan II, Panfilo M. Lacson, Manuel M.
Lapid, Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmeña III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon
Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of Representatives,
respondents.

FOR:HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE (x)
HON. JINGGOY EJERCITO ESTRADA (x)
HON. VICENTE C. SOTTO III (x)
HON.
ALAN PETER S. CAYETANO (x)
HON. EDGARDO J. ANGARA (x)
HON. JOKER P. ARROYO (x)
HON. PIA S. CAYETANO (x)

HON. FRANKLIN M. DRILON (x)
HON. FRANCIS E. ESCUDERO (x)
HON. TEOFISTO GUINGONA III (x)
HON. GREGORIO
B. HONASAN II (x)
HON. PANFILO M. LACSON (x)
HON. MANUEL M. LAPID (x)
HON. LOREN B. LEGARDA (x)
HON.
FERDINAND R. MARCOS, JR. (x)
HON. SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III (x)
HON. KIKO PANGILINAN (x)
HON. AQUILINO
PIMENTEL III (x)
HON. RALPH G. RECTO (x)
HON. RAMON REVILLA, JR. (x)
HON. ANTONIO F. TRILLANES IV (x)
HON.
MANNY VILLAR (x)

SENATE IMPEACHMENT COURT

Respondent

Senate Building

GSIS Headquarters

Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City

PROSECUTION PANEL OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (x)

 Respondent

Constitution Hills

Quezon City

GREETINGS :
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court, on February 9, 2012, adopted a resolution in the above-entitled case, to wit:

"G.R. No. 200238 (Philippine Savings Bank and Pascual M. Garcia III, as representative of Philippine Savings Bank and his personal
capacity vs. Senate Impeachment Court consisting of the Senators of the Republic of the Philippines, acting as Senator Judges, namely
Juan Ponce Enrile, Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada, Vicente C. Sotto III, Alan Peter S. Cayetano, Edgardo J. Angara, Joker P. Arroyo, Pia S.
Cayetano, Franklin M. Drilon, Francis G. Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III, Gregorio B. Honasan II, Panfilo M. Lacson, Manuel M. Lapid,
Loren B. Legarda, Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., Sergio R. Osmeña III, Kiko Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ralph G. Recto, Ramon
Revilla, Jr., Antonio F. Trillanes IV, Manny Villar, and the Honorable Members of the Prosecution Panel of the House of
Representatives.). — Acting on the Special Civil Actions for Certiorari and Prohibition with application for temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary injunction, the Court resolves to:

(a)REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on the petition NOT LATER THAN ten (10) days from receipt
hereof; and

(b)ISSUE A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER in the petition, enjoining the respondents from
implementing the Subpoena Ad Testificandum et Duces Tecum, dated February 6, 2012, issued
by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court against the Branch Manager (and/or An
Authorized Representative competent to testify on the matter herein stated), PSBANK,
Katipunan Branch.

Rule 57, Section 3 enumerates the ground for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction:

Section 3.Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. — A preliminary injunction may be

granted when it is established:

(a)That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in
requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;

(b)That the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of

during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or

(c)That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is

procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the
applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the
judgment ineffectual.

There are two requisite conditions for the issuance of a preliminary injunction:

(1)the right to be protected exists prima facie, and

(2)the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right. It must be proven that the violation
sought to be prevented would cause an irreparable injustice.

A clear right to maintain the confidentiality of the foreign currency deposits of the Chief Justice is provided
under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the
Philippines (RA 6426). This law establishes the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits: 1

Section 8.Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. — All foreign currency deposits authorized under
this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD
No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and,
except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency
deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or
office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or
private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from
attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body,
government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and
further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)

Under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is,
 disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. 2 In Intengan v. Court of Appeals, 3
the Court ruled that where the accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits, the applicable law is not
Republic Act No. 1405 but RA 6426. Similarly, in the recent case of Government Service Insurance System
v. 15th Division of the Court of Appeals, 4 the Court also held that RA 6426 is the applicable law for foreign
currency deposits and not Republic Act No. 1405. In ruling that Westmont Bank cannot be compelled to
disclose the dollar deposits of Domsat Holdings, Inc., the Court ruled:

These two laws both support the confidentiality of bank deposits. There is no conflict between
them. Republic Act No. 1405 was enacted for the purpose of giving encouragement to the
people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that
the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic
development of the country. It covers all bank deposits in the Philippines and no distinction was
made between domestic and foreign deposits. Thus, Republic Act No. 1405 is considered a law
of general application. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6426 was intended to encourage
deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is a special law designed especially for foreign
currency deposits in the Philippines. A general law does not nullify a specific or special law.
Generalia specialibus non derogant. Therefore, it is beyond cavil that Republic Act No. 6426
applies in this case. 5

The written consent under RA 6426 constitutes a waiver of the depositor's right to privacy in relation to such
deposit. 6 In the present case, neither the prosecution nor the Impeachment Court has presented any such
written waiver by the alleged depositor, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. Also, while impeachment may be an
exception to the secrecy of bank deposits under RA 1405, it is not an exemption to the absolute
confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under RA 6426.

Other cited authorities shall follow in the separate concurring and dissenting opinions the Justices will file."

NOW, THEREFORE, effective immediately and continuing until further order from this COURT, the Respondents, your agents,
representatives, or persons acting in your place or stead, are hereby ENJOINED from enforcing or implementing the Subpoena Ad
Testificandum et Duces Tecumdated February 6, 2012, issued by the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court.

Given by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, this 9th day of February 2012. Concurring — JJ. De Castro, Brion, Bersamin, Abad,
Villarama, Perez, Mendoza and Reyes — the Separate Concurring Opinions to follow; Dissenting — JJ. Carpio, Peralta, Del Castillo,
Sereno and Bernabe — the Separate Dissenting Opinions to follow; Inhibiting — Chief Justice Corona and Justice Velasco.

Very truly yours,

ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL

Clerk of Court