NO, Yvan’s bank cannot be ordered by the court to disclose if there were unreasonable increases in his bank deposit when the alleged acts were committed. The inquiry into bank deposits allowable under RA 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action; otherwise, the inquiry will amount to an impermissible encroachment into one’s right to privacy. (BSB Group v. Go, G.R. No. 168644, February 16, 2010)
a. YES. A writ of garnishment may be issued against the bank deposit of B with China Bank. The Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits is merely against inquiry or disclosure of information relative to the funds or property in the custody of the bank.
b. The exceptions to the prohibitions against disclosure of bank deposits include:
1. Upon the written permission of the depositor;
2. in cases of impeachment;
3. upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty or where money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation;
4. in anti-graft and corruption cases; and
5. when authorized by the Monetary Board if it has reasonable ground to believe that such account is being used or was used to commit a bank fraud.
NO. I will not strike out the testimonies from the record. The testimonies of bank officials indicating where the questioned dollar accounts were opened in depositing misappropriated sums must be considered as likewise involved in litigation—one which is among the excepted cases under the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act.
NO. Miguel’s contention is not tenable. The inquiry into illegally acquired property extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons. To sustain Miguel’s theory and restrict the inquiry only to property held by or in the name of the government who illegally acquire property an easy means of evading prosecution. All they have to do would be to simply place the property in the name of persons other than their spouses and children.
YES, as far as the peso account is concerned. Section 2 of RA No. 1405 allows the disclosure of bank deposits in case where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. Since the case filed against Michael is aimed at recovering the amount he withdrew from the funds of the partnership, which amount he allegedly deposited in his account, a disclosure of his bank deposits would be proper.
NO, with respect to the foreign currency account. Under the Foreign Currency Law, the exemption to the prohibition against disclosure of information concerning bank deposits is the written consent of the depositor.
YES. Whether the transaction is considered a sale or money placement does not make the money subject matter of litigation within the meaning of Sec. 2 of RA 1405 which prohibits the disclosure or inquiry into bank deposits except “in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation” nor will it matter whether the money was “swindled”.
YES. The opposition is valid. GP is not a public official. The investigation does not involve one of the exceptions to the prohibition against disclosure of any information concerning bank deposits under the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. The Committee conducting the investigation is not a competent court or the Ombudsman authorized under the law involving such disclosure.
NO. The notice of garnishment served on a bank at the instance of a creditor is not covered by the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Garnishment is just a part of the process of execution. The moment a notice of garnishment is served on a bank and there exists a deposit by the judgment debtor, the bank is directly accountable to the sheriff, for the benefit of the judgment creditor, for the whole amount of the deposit. In such event, the amount of the deposit becomes, in effect, a subject of the litigation.
NO. CDC’s complaint is not meritorious. It was held in China Banking Corporation v. Ortega, 49 SCRA 355 (1973) that peso deposits may be garnished and the depositary bank can comply with the order of garnishment without violating the Law on the Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Execution is the goal of litigation as it is its fruit. Garnishment is part of the execution process. Upon service of the notice of garnishment on the bank where the defendant deposited funds, such funds become part of the subject matter of litigation.
