Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Marquez V Desierto
Marquez V Desierto
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; NOT PRESENT IN CASE AT BAR. — 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. THESAD
DECISION
PARDO, J : p
On May 26, 1998, the FFIB panel met in conference with petitioner
Lourdes T. Marquez and Atty. Fe B. Macalino at the bank's main office, Ayala
Avenue, Makati City. The meeting was for the purpose of allowing petitioner
and Atty. Macalino to view the checks furnished by Traders Royal Bank. After
convincing themselves of the veracity of the checks, Atty. Macalino advised Ms.
Marquez to comply with the order of the Ombudsman. Petitioner agreed to an in
camera inspection set on June 3, 1998. 4
However, on June 4, 1998, petitioner wrote the Ombudsman explaining to
him that the accounts in question cannot readily be identified and asked for
time to respond to the order. The reason forwarded by petitioner was that
"despite diligent efforts and from the account numbers presented, we can not
identify these accounts since the checks are issued in cash or bearer. We
surmised that these accounts have long been dormant, hence are not covered
by the new account number generated by the Union Bank system. We therefore
have to verify from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of these
accounts." 5
The Ombudsman, responding to the request of the petitioner for time to
comply with the order, stated: "firstly, it must be emphasized that Union Bank,
Julia Vargas Branch was the depositary bank of the subject Traders Royal Bank
Manager's Checks (MCs), as shown at its dorsal portion and as cleared by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Philippine Clearing House, not the International Corporate Bank. CTHaSD
Notwithstanding the fact that the checks were payable to cash or bearer,
nonetheless, the name of the depositor(s) could easily be identified since the
account numbers . . . where said checks were deposited are identified in the
order.
And finally, the in camera inspection was already extended twice from
May 13, 1998 to June 3, 1998, thereby giving the bank enough time within
which to sufficiently comply with the order." 6
On July 10, 1998, petitioner together with Union Bank of the Philippines,
filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunction 8 with the
Regional Trial Court, Makati City, against the Ombudsman.
The petition was intended to clear the rights and duties of petitioner.
Thus, petitioner sought a declaration of her rights from the court due to the
clear conflict between R.A. No. 6770, Section 15 and R.A. No. 1405, Sections 2
and 3.
In the meantime, 9 on July 14, 1998, the lower court denied petitioner's
prayer for a temporary restraining order and stated thus:
"After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court finds the
application for a Temporary Restraining Order to be without merit.
On July 23, 1998, the Ombudsman filed a motion to dismiss the petition
for declaratory relief 12 on the ground that the Regional Trial Court has no
jurisdiction to hear a petition for relief from the findings and orders of the
Ombudsman, citing R.A. No. 6770, Sections 14 and 27. On August 7, 1998, the
Ombudsman filed an opposition to petitioner's motion for reconsideration dated
July 20, 1998. 13
On August 19, 1998, the lower court denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, 14 and also the Ombudsman's motion to dismiss. 15
On August 21, 1998, petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her
for contempt, filed with the Office of the Ombudsman by Agapito B. Rosales,
Director, Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB). 16
On August 31, 1998, petitioner filed with the Ombudsman an opposition to
the motion to cite her in contempt on the ground that the filing thereof was
premature due to the petition pending in the lower court. 17 Petitioner likewise
reiterated that she had no intention to disobey the orders of the Ombudsman.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
However, she wanted to be clarified as to how she would comply with the
orders without her breaking any law, particularly R. A. No. 1405. 18
Respondent Ombudsman panel set the incident for hearing on September
7, 1998. 19 After hearing, the panel issued an order dated September 7, 1998,
ordering petitioner and counsel to appear for a continuation of the hearing of
the contempt charges against her. 20
On September 10, 1998, petitioner filed with the Ombudsman a motion
for reconsideration of the above order. 21 Her motion was premised on the fact
that there was a pending case with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, 22
which would determine whether obeying the orders of the Ombudsman to
produce bank documents would not violate any law.
The FFIB opposed the motion, 23 and on October 14, 1998, the
Ombudsman denied the motion by order the dispositive portion of which reads:
"Wherefore, respondent Lourdes T. Marquez's motion for
reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Let the hearing of
the motion of the Fact Finding Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to cite her for
indirect contempt be intransferably set to 29 October 1998 at 2:00
o'clock p.m. at which date and time she should appear personally to
submit her additional evidence. Failure to do so shall be deemed a
waiver thereof." 24
The issue is whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for her
failure to produce the documents requested by the Ombudsman. And 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).
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;
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. cSaATC
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 a 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, the 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. 28
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we GRANT the petition. We order the Ombudsman to
cease and desist from requiring Union Bank Manager Lourdes T. Marquez, or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
anyone in her place to comply with the order dated October 14, 1998, and
similar orders. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr .
and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
26. Philippine National Bank vs. Gancayco, 122 Phil. 503, 508 [1965].
27. Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 321 SCRA 563, 564-565
[1999].
28. Ople vs. Torres, 354 Phil. 948, 973-974 [1998].