[G.R. No. 94723. August 21, 1997] Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Phils, China Banking Corp.

and Gred Bartelli y Northcott FACTS: Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old to go with him to his apartment to teach his alleged niece the Filipino language. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion and was able to rape the child once on February 4, and three times each day on February 5, 6, and 7, 1989. The policemen and people living nearby, rescued Karen, Greg Bartelli was arrested and detained. He was then charged with four counts of Rape and Serious Illegal Detention, and for damages with preliminary attachment. On the day of the scheduled hearing for Bartellis petition for bail the latter escaped from jail. Meanwhile, a Writ of Preliminary Attachment was issued by the trial court, thus the Deputy Sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment on China Banking Corporation were barteilli maintained a dollar account. However, China Banking Corporation and the Central Bank refused to honor the writ of execution invoking Republic Act No. 1405 as its answer to the notice of garnishment served on it and further invoked Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426. As amended by P.D. 1246 and Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the effect that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body, whatsoever. After hearing the case ex-parte, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners ordering defendant to pay for damages. Issue: W/N Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of R.A. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act be made applicable to a foreign transient? HELD: NO. The provisions of Section 113 of CB Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246, insofar as it amends Section 8 of R.A. 6426 are INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. One of the principal purposes of the protection against attachment, garnishment and other court process accorded to foreign currency deposits is to assure the development and speedy growth of the Foreign Currency Deposit system and the Offshore Banking in the Philippines and to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors. It is these depositors that are induced by the two laws and given protection and incentives by them. Obviously, the foreign currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encourage by the law and given incentives and protection by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time. Respondent Greg Bartelli, is just a tourist or a transient. He deposited his dollars with respondent China Banking Corporation only for safekeeping during his temporary stay in the Philippines. For this reasons dollar deposit of respondent Greg Bartelli is not entitled to the protection of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against attachment, garnishment or other court processes. In fine, the application of the law depends 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.
It is in this light that the court in the case of Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines,[13] allowed the inquiry of the foreign currency deposit in question mainly due to the peculiar circumstances of the case such that a strict interpretation of the letter of the law would result to rank injustice. Therein, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, was charged with criminal cases for serious illegal detention and rape committed against then 12 year-old Karen Salvacion. A separate civil case for damages with preliminary attachment was filed against Greg Bartelli. The trial court issued an Order granting the Salvacions application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. A notice of garnishment was then served on China Bank where Bartelli held a dollar account. China Bank refused, invoking the secrecy of bank deposits. The Supreme Court ruled: In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice x x x It would be unthinkable, that the questioned law exempting foreign currency deposits from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever would be used as a device by an accused x xx for wrongdoing, and in so doing, acquitting the guilty at the expense of the innocent.[14]