G.R. No.

107303 February 23, 1995

EMMANUEL C. OÑATE and ECON HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioners,

vs.
HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, as Presiding Judge of Branch 150 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
and SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, respondents.

BRUNNER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,

vs.
HON. ZEUS C. ABROGAR, as Presiding Judge of Branch 150 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati,
and SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, respondents.

FACTS:

Oñate offered to sell to Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada treasury bills at a discounted price.
Sun Life paid the price by means of a check payable to Brunner Development Corporation. Brunner issued
to it receipt with the undertaking to deliver the treasury bills to Sun Life. However, Brunner delivered
instead promissory note in which it was made to appear that the transaction was a money placement
instead of sale of treasury bills. Hence, Sun Life sued Oñate, Econ and Brunner for the delivery of the
treasury bills.

Sun Life filed another motion for examination of bank accounts, seeking the examination of
Oñate’s Account No. 0041-0277-03 with the Bank of Philippine Islands (BPI) — which was claimed
not to be owned him — and the records of Philippine National Bank (PNB) with regard to checks
payable to Brunner. The judge granted the motion and ordered the examination of the books of
accounts and ledgers of Brunner at the Urban Bank and the records of account of Oñate at BPI and
he even ordered PNB to produce the records regarding certain checks deposited in it.

Aggrieved by the order issued by the court, Oñate contended that it was a fishing expedition which
the trial court should not have allowed.

ISSUE:

Whether the examination of the bank account in the instant case is a violation of RA 1405.

RULING:

The examination of the bank account in which the money paid by an insurance company for treasury
bills was deposited is prohibited by RA 1405 even if the insurance company sued the seller of the treasury
bills for failure to deliver the treasury bills, for the money is not subject matter of the litigation.

Whether the transaction is considered a sale or money placement does not make the money the
“subject matter” of litigation within the meaning of Section 2 of RA 1405 which prohibits the disclosure
or inquiry into bank deposits except “in cases where the money deposited or interest is the subject matter
of litigation nor will it matter whether the money was swindled as Sun Life contends.
 [G.R. No. 135882. June 27, 2001]

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager, Union Bank of the Philippines, petitioners,
vs. HON. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, (in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, Evaluation and Preliminary
Investigation Bureau, Office of the Ombudsman, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR., MARY ANN
CORPUZ-MANALAC and JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., in their capacities as Chairman and Members of the
Panel, respectively, respondents.

Facts:

Pursuant to an investigation regarding the PEA – AMARI project, Ombudsman Desierto ordered
Lourdes Marquez to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various
accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where she is the branch manager.

The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera inspection the subject accounts with the
Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, was based on a pending investigation at the Office of the
Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo, 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.

Marquez filed a petition for declaratory relief, seeking to clarify if such order if complied with will be violative
of RA. No. 1405.

Issue:
Whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is
allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (R.A. No.1405).

Held:
No, it is not allowed.

For 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 account holder must
be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in
the pending case.

An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (R. A. No. 1405) would reveal the following
exceptions:

1. Where the depositor consents in writing;

2. Impeachment case;

3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials;

4. Deposit is subject of litigation;

5. Sec. 8, R. A. No. 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth (as held in the case of PNB vs. Gancayco);

In addition to the above provided exceptions, and as held in Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court
of Appeals, Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended, declares bank deposits to be
absolutely confidential except:

(1) In an examination made in the course of a special or general examination of a bank that is specifically
authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank
fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit
to establish such fraud or irregularity,
(2) In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided
that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the
bank,

(3) Upon written permission of the depositor,

(4) In cases of impeachment,

(5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or

(6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation

In the instant case, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What
is existing is an investigation by the Office of the Ombudsman. Thus, what the office of the ombudsman
would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo with the
Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank
account for inspection.

Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. The Civil Code provides that” [e]very
person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons”
and punishes as actionable torts several acts for meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also
holds public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights
and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications. The
Revised Penal Code makes a crime of the violation of secrets by an officer, revelation of trade and industrial
secrets, and trespass to dwelling. 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.