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.
G.R. No. 135882. June 27, 2001
Doctrine: 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. Therefore, for the bank secrecy
law to be disregarded, one of the exemptions is that there must be a pending litigation before a competent court.
Facts: Sometime in May 1998, petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto
dated April 29, 1998, to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various
accounts.
It is worth mentioning that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and to require the production and inspection
of records and documents is sanctioned by the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise
known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989 and under existing jurisprudence on the matter. Such were needed for the
investigation being conducted by the office of the Ombudsman to a certain Lagdameo. A conference between the
respondent and Marquez with her lawyer was made and they have agreed to procure and provide the said document.
Weeks passed and Marquez did not able to provide the said documents stating that they could not validate the
account owner as they need to check several documents. Ombudsman said it was just delaying tactics so they file an
indirect contempt case against Marquez for not cooperating and providing the required documents requested thru a
lawful order.

Issue: Whether or not the office of the Ombudsman could compel Marquesz to provide bank documents.

Held: No. Marquez cannot be compelled to provide the documents.

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

We rule that before 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.
In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that 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 litigation27cräläwvirtualibräry

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