Corporation Law Case Digest: Marquez vs. Desierto

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ,in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,

petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO ,in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR., MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR.,in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Panel, respectively, respondents.

G.R. No. 135882

June 27, 2001

Facts:

Respondent Ombudsman Desierto ordered petitioner 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 petitioner is the branch manager.

The order 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.

Petitioner wanted to be clarified first as to how she would comply with the orders without her breaking any law, particularly 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.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

Corporation Law Case Digest: Intengan vs Court of Appeals

CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROSARIO LL. NERI, and RITA P. BRAWNER, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AZIZ RAJKOTWALA, WILLIAM FERGUSON, JOVEN REYES, and VIC LIM,

respondents.

G.R. No. 128996

February 15, 2002

Facts:

 
On September 21, 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation of section 31 in relation to section 144 of the Corporation Code against two (2) of its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit executed by private respondent Vic Lim, a vice-president of Citibank

As evidence, Lim annexed bank records purporting to establish the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino. Some of the documents pertained to the dollar deposits of petitioners Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner.

In turn, private respondent Joven Reyes, vice-president/business manager of the Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibank, admits to having authorized Lim to state the names of the clients involved and to attach the pertinent bank records, including those of petitioners’.

Petitioners aver that respondents violated RA 1405.

Issue: 

 
Whether or not Respondents are liable for violation of Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act, RA 1405.

Held: 

 
No. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405 but Republic Act (RA) No. 6426, known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines,” However, applying Act No. 3326, the offense prescribes in eight years, therefore, per available records, private respondents may no longer be haled before the courts for violation of Republic Act No. 6426.