EN BANC

[G.R. No. 135882. June 27, 2001.]

LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager,

Union Bank of the Philippines, petitioner, 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.

Fortun Narvasa Law Office for petitioner.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

SYNOPSIS

Sometime in May, 1998, petitioner Lourdes T. Marquez as Branch

Manager of Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, received an
Order from Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto dated April 29, 1998, to produce
several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera. The accounts to
be inspected are involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled,
"Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) vs. Amado Lagdameo, et al." for
violation of R.A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g). In relation thereto, petitioner,
together with Union Bank of the Philippines, filed a petition for declaratory
relief, prohibition and injunction with the Regional Trial Court, Makati City,
against the Ombudsman wherein petitioner sought a declaration of her rights
from the court due to the clear conflict between R.A. No. 6770 (The
Ombudsman Act of 1989), Section 15 and R.A. No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank
Deposits Law), Sections 2 and 3. On August 21, 1998, petitioner received a
copy of the motion to cite her for contempt. Petitioner then filed with the
Ombudsman an opposition, on the ground that the filing thereof was premature
due to the petition pending in the lower court. But then, the Ombudsman panel
ordered her and her counsel to appear for a continuation of the hearing of the
contempt charges against her. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied by the Ombudsman in the order dated October 14, 1998. Hence, this
petition.
The Court ruled 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 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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.

Petition was GRANTED.

SYLLABUS

1. MERCANTILE LAW; BANKING LAW; REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1405 (LAW ON

SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS); EXCEPTIONS. — An examination of the secrecy
of the 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.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REQUISITES BEFORE AN IN CAMERA INSPECTION MAY
BE ALLOWED. — 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. 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.

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

4. ID.; ID.; ID.; UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. COURT OF

APPEALS; DECLARES BANK DEPOSITS TO BE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL;
EXCEPTIONS. — In Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held
that "Section 2 of the Law on the 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.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 5. CIVIL LAW; PERSONS; ZONES OF PRIVACY ARE RECOGNIZED AND
PROTECTED IN OUR LAWS. — 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.

DECISION

PARDO, J : p

In the petition at bar, petitioner seeks to —

a. Annul and set aside, for having been issued without or in
excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction, respondents' order dated
September 7, 1998 in OMB-0-97-0411, In Re: Motion to Cite
Lourdes T. Marquez for indirect contempt, received by
counsel of September 9, 1998, and their order dated October
14, 1998, denying Marquez's motion for reconsideration
dated September 10, 1998, received by counsel on October
20, 1998.

b. Prohibit respondents from implementing their order dated

October 14, 1998, in proceeding with the hearing of the
motion to cite Marquez for indirect contempt, through the
issuance by this Court of a temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction. 1

The antecedent facts are as follows:

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
maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, where
petitioner is the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected are Account
Nos. 011-37270, 240-020718, 245-30317-3 and 245-30318-1, involved in a case
pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau
(FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et. al. The order further states:
"It is worth mentioning that the power of the Ombudsman to
investigate and to require the production and inspection of records and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. It must be noted that R.A.
6770 especially Section 15 thereof provides, among others, the
following powers, functions and duties of the Ombudsman, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx

(8) Administer oaths, issue subpoena and subpoena duces

tecum and take testimony in any investigation or inquiry, including the
power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records;

(9) Punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court

and under the same procedure and with the same penalties provided
therein.
Clearly, the specific provision of R.A. 6770, a later legislation,
modifies the law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405) and
places the Office of the Ombudsman in the same footing as the courts
of law in this regard." 2

The basis of the Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the

accounts is a trail of managers checks purchased by one George Trivinio, a
respondent in OMB-0-97-0411, pending with the office of the Ombudsman.

It would appear that Mr. George Trivinio, purchased fifty—one (51)

Managers Checks (MCs) for a total amount of P272.1 Million at Traders Royal
Bank, United Nations Avenue branch, on May 2 and 3, 1995. Out of the 51 MCs,
eleven (11) MCs in the amount of P70.6 million, were deposited and credited to
an account maintained at the Union Bank, Julia Vargas Branch. 3

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.

Even assuming that the accounts . . . were already classified as "dormant

accounts," the bank is still required to preserve the records pertaining to the
accounts within a certain period of time as required by existing banking rules
and regulations.

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

Thus, on June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman issued an order directing

petitioner to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in issue. The
order states:
Viewed from the foregoing, your persistent refusal to comply with
Ombudsman's order is unjustified, and is merely intended to delay the
investigation of the case. Your act constitutes disobedience of or
resistance to a lawful order issued by this office and is punishable as
Indirect Contempt under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6770. The same may also
constitute obstruction in the lawful exercise of the functions of the
Ombudsman which is punishable under Section 36 of R.A. 6770. 7

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.

Petitioner prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) because the

Ombudsman and other persons acting under his authority were continuously
harassing her to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in
question. Moreover, on June 16, 1998, the Ombudsman issued another order
stating that unless petitioner appeared before the FFIB with the documents
requested, petitioner manager would be charged with indirect contempt and
obstruction of justice.

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.

"Since the application prays for the restraint of the respondent, in

the exercise of his contempt powers under Section 15 (9) in relation to
paragraph (8) of R.A. 6770, known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989,"
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 there is no great or irreparable injury from which petitioners may
suffer, if respondent is not so restrained. Respondent should he decide
to exercise his contempt powers would still have to apply with the
court. . . . Anyone who, without lawful excuse . . . refuses to produce
documents for inspection, when thereunto lawfully required shall be
subject to discipline as in case of contempt of Court and upon
application of the individual or body exercising the power in question
shall be dealt with by the Judge of the First Instance (now RTC) having
jurisdiction of the case in a manner provided by law (section 580 of the
Revised Administrative Code). Under the present Constitution only
judges may issue warrants, hence, respondent should apply with the
Court for the issuance of the warrant needed for the enforcement of his
contempt orders. It is in these proceedings where petitioners may
question the propriety of respondent's exercise of his contempt
powers. Petitioners are not therefore left without any adequate
remedy.

"The questioned orders were issued with the investigation of the

case of Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau vs. Amado Lagdameo, et.
al., OMB-0-97-0411, for violation of R.A. 3019. Since petitioner failed to
show prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation
is outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman, no writ of
injunction may be issued by this Court to delay this investigation
pursuant to Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act of 1989." 10

On July 20, 1998, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration based on

the following grounds:
a. Petitioners' application for Temporary Restraining Order is not
only to restrain the Ombudsman from exercising his contempt
powers, but to stop him from implementing his Orders dated
April 29, 1998 and June 16, 1998; and

b. The subject matter of the investigation being conducted by the

Ombudsman at petitioners' premises is outside his jurisdiction. 11

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

Hence, the present petition. 25

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;

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 . 26

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. ETDHaC

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 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 litigation". 27

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

1. Petition, Rollo , pp. 8-29.

2. Ibid., p. 10.
3. Ibid.
4. Motion to Cite LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, Union Bank Julia Vargas Branch
Manager for Indirect Contempt, Rollo , pp. 79-80, at p. 80.
5. Petition, Annex "D", Letter of Ms. Lourdes Marquez, Rollo , pp. 39-40.
6. Ibid., Annex "E", Order, pp. 41-42.
7. Ibid., at p. 42.
8. Docketed as Civil Case No. 98-1585, Union Bank of the Philippines and
Lourdes T. Marquez vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, in his capacity as
Ombudsman.
9. Petition, Annex "G", Order dated July 14, 1998 in Civil Case No. 98-1585
Rollo , pp. 54-55.
10. Ibid., p. 12.
11. Petition, Annex "H", Rollo , pp. 56-65.
12. Ibid., Annex "I", Rollo , pp. 66-70.
13. Ibid., Annex "J" Rollo , pp. 71-76.
14. Ibid., Annex "K", Rollo , p. 77.
15. Ibid., Annex "L", Rollo , p. 78.
16. Ibid., Rollo , p. 13.
17. In Civil Case No. 98-1585.
18. Ibid., Rollo , p. 13.
19. Ibid., Rollo , p. 14.
20. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo , pp. 30-32.
21. Petition, Annex "O", Rollo , pp. 88-92.
22. In Civil Case No. 98-1585.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 23. Petition, Annex "P", Rollo , pp. 93-97.
24. Petition, Annex "B", Rollo , pp. 33-34.
25. Filed on October 28, 1998, Petition, Rollo , pp. 8-26. On November 16, 1998,
we required respondents to comment on the petition (Rollo , p. 98). On March
26, 1999, respondents filed their comment (Rollo , pp. 116-132). We now give
due course to the petition.

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].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com