Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405)

Comia, A.T
FACTS:
- Jose Gotianuy accused his daughter Mary Margaret Dee of stealing, among
his other properties, US dollar deposits with Citibank N.A. amounting to not
less than P35,000,000.00 and US$864,000.00. Mary Margaret
Deereceived these amounts from Citibank N.A. through checks which she alle
gedly deposited at China BankingCorporation (China Bank). He likewise accused
his son-in-law, George Dee, husband of his daughter, MaryMargaret, of transferring
his real properties and shares of stock in George Dees name without any
consideration.Jose Gotianuy, died during the pendency of the case before the trial court.
He was substituted by his daughter,Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo. The latter presented the US
Dollar checks withdrawn by Mary Margaret Dee from his USdollar placement with Citibank.Upon motion of Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo, the trial court issued a subpoena to
Cristota Labios and Isabel Yap,employees of China Bank, to testify on the case.-China
Bank opposed.
TC:
-The disclosure is only as to the name or whose name the said fund is deposited is not violative of the
law
CA:
-Affirmed TC. The law protects only the deposit itself but not the name of depositor.
CBs Contention:
-Jose Gotianuy is not the owner of the questioned foreign currency deposit, thus, he
cannot invoke the aid of thecourt in compelling the disclosure of someone elses foreign currency
deposit.
ISSUE:
-Whether or not Jose Gotianuy as co payee of a foreign currency depositor in checks
deposited in the account of Mary Margaret Dee is a depositor.
HELD:
-The law provides that all foreign currency deposits authorized under Republic Act No. 6426, as
amended by Sec. 8,Presidential Decree No. 1246, Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign
currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034 are considered absolutely
confidential in nature and may not be inquired into. There
Page 19 of 21

Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405)


Comia, A.T
is only one exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure
is allowed upon the writtenpermission of the depositor.-As the owner of the funds unlawfully
taken and which are undisputably now deposited with China Bank, JoseGotianuy has the
right to inquire into the said deposits.-A depositor, in cases of bank deposits, is one who pays money
into the bank in the usual course of business, to beplaced to his credit and subject to his check or the
beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee.-As CA ruled:Furthermore, it is indubitable
that the Citibank checks were drawn against the foreign currencyaccount with Citibank,
NA. The monies subject of said checks originally came from the late JoseGotianuy,
the owner of the account. Thus, he also has legal rights and interests in the
CBCaccount where said monies were deposited.

More importantly, the Citibank checks readily demonstrate that the late Jose
Gotianuy is one of the payees of said checks.
Being a co-payeethereof, then he or his estate can be considered as a co-depositor of said checks.
Ergo, since thelate Jose Gotianuy is a co-depositor of the CBC account, then his
request for the assailedsubpoena is tantamount to an express permission of a
depositor for the disclosure of the name of the account holder.
15. Republic v. Eugenio, 545 SCRA 384 (2008)
FACTS:
-A series of investigation concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to
PIATCO were undertaken by theOmbudsman and the compliance and Investigation Staff
(CIS) of Anti-Money Laundering Council.-The OSG wrote AMLC requesting the latters
assistance in obtaining more evidence to completely reveal thefinancial trail of corruption
surrounding the NAIA 3 Project.-The CIS conducted an intelligence database search on
the financial transactions of certain individuals involved inthe award, including
Pontaleon Alvarez who had been the chairman of the PBAC Technical committee, NAIA
3Project.-The search revealed that Alvarez maintained 8 bank accounts with 6 different banks.
Page 20 of 21

Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (RA 1405)


Comia, A.T
-AMLC issued resolution whereby the council resolved to authorize the executive director of the AMLC
to sign andverify an application to inquire into and/or examine the deposits or investments of
Pantaleon Alvarez et al., and their related web of accounts wherever theses may be found
and to authorize the AMLC Secretariat to conduct aninquiry into the subject accounts
once the RTC-Makati grants the application to inquire into and/or examine bankaccounts
of those persons. RTC grants the application.-Pursuant to the order, CIS proceeded to inquire and
examine the deposits, investments and related web accounts.-Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman
wrote a letter requesting AMLC to investigate the accounts of Alvarez et al,which AMLC likewise
heeded.-Again, AMLC filed an application, this time with RTC Manila, to inquire into
and/or examine 13 accounts and 2related web of accounts allegedly having been used to
facilitate corruption in NAIA 3 Project.-Manila RTC issued an order granting Ex-parte the application.Alvarez filed an Urgent Motion to stay enforcement of the order.-RTC stayed the order but soon after,
reinstated the same.
HELD:
-There is no need for a pre existing or pending case in court for violation of the Anti- Money Laundering
Law beforea bank inquiry order may be issued by the court. However it does not follow
that such order may be availed of ex-parte. A bank inquiry order, unlike a freeze order
can not be issued unless notice is given to the owners of theaccount, allowing them the
opportunity to contest the issuance of such order.

Вам также может понравиться