INTENGAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 128996

INTENGAN vs. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 128996, February 15, 2002

PONENTE: DE LEON, JR., J.:.

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.

The complaint was attached with the affidavit of Vic Lim, VP of Citibank, who was then instructed by the higher management of the bank to investigate the anomalous/highly irregular activities of the said officers.

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 (Bank Secrecy Law).

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

RULING: NO. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits; consequently, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405, but Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6426, known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines,”section 8 of which provides: Sec. 8. Secrecy of Foreign Currency Deposits.—All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under Presidential Decree No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall such foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative or any other entity whether public or private: Provided, however, that said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.

Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. .

A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 should have been the proper case brought against private respondents. Private respondents Lim and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners’dollar deposits without the letter’s written permission. It does not matter if that such disclosure was necessary to establish Citibank’s case against Dante L. Santos and Marilou Genuino. Lim’s act of disclosing details of petitioners’bank records regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes, would appear to belong to that species of criminal acts punishable by special laws, called malum prohibitum.