DONA v.

TIDCORP

G.R. No. 201931

Justice Villarama Jr.

Facts

1. On August 23, 2006, petitioner Dona Adela Export International, Inc., filed a petition for
Voluntary Insolvency.
2. RTC declared DONA insolvent and set initial hearing on Oct. 19, 2006.
3. Atty. Gonzales, appointed receiver made necessary documents to submit as proof of their claims.
4. Atty. Gonzales filed a Motion for Parties to Enter into a Compromise Agreement.
5. DONA entered into Dacio En Pago by Compromised Agreement.
6. On Aug. 11, 2006, TIDCORP and BPI filed a Joint Motion of Agreement which includes section 4
stating that all necessary expenses and taxes shall be account for Mr. Epifanio C. Ramos Jr. And
Section 5 which waiver the confidentiality of the petitioner and its board members granting
TIDCORP and BPI access to their accounts maintained in the bank.
7. Mr. Epifanio filed a Manifestation and Motion to Proposed Compromised Agreement that his
name be deleted for he is a separate identity from DONA.
8. RTC Approved Joint Motion of Agreement and Dacio En Pago.
9. Petitioner filed for motion for partial reconsideration for BPI-TIDCORP agreement imposes
several obligations and waiver of confidentiality but is not part of the signatory.
10. RTC denied on grounds of silence and attendance in hearings.
11. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

WON the petitioner is bound by the provisions of BPI-TIDCORP Joint-Motion to agreement that the
petitioner shall waive its rights to confidentiality of its bank deposits under RA 1405.

Holding

No, petition granted.

Ruling

Under Section 2 of R.A. 1405 provides the exceptions when records of deposits may be
disclosed. There ae under any of the following instances: (a) upon written permission of the
depositor, (b) in cases of impeachment, (c) upon order of a competent court in the case of
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or, (d) when the money deposited or invested is
the subject matter of litigation, and (e) in case of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
In this case, the Joint Motion to Approve Agreement was executed by BPI and TIDCORP only.
There was no written consent given by petitioner or its representative, Epifanio Ramos, Jr., that
petitioner is waiving the confidentiality of its bank deposits. The provision on the waiver of the
confidentiality of petitioners bank deposits was merely inserted in the agreement. It is clear
therefore that petitioner is not bound by the said provision since it was without the express
consent of petitioner who was not a party and signatory to the said agreement.
There must be persuasive evidence to show an actual intention to relinquish the right. Mere
silence on the part of the holder of the right should not be construed as a surrender thereof; the
 courts must indulge every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such
waiver.
Clearly, the waiver of confidentiality of petitioners bank deposits in the BPI-TIDCORP Joint
Motion to Approve Agreement lacks the required written consent of petitioner and conformity
of the receiver. We, thus, hold that petitioner is not bound by the said provision.