MARQUEZ vs DESIERTO

MARQUEZ vs DESIERTO

G.R. NO. 135882

June 27, 2001

Pardo, J.

FACTS: Marquez, branch manager of Union Bank Julia Vargas, received an Order from Ombudsman to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera. The Ombudsman wanted to conduct such in camera inspection on the accounts based on a trail of manager’s checks by a certain Trivinio who purchased 51 managers checks for a total amount of P272M. Marquez agreed to the inspection.

Marquez wrote to the Ombudsman saying that the accounts in question cannot readily be identified and asked for time to respond to the order. The Ombudsman replied that the Bank should have preserved records despite the accounts being dormant.

Ombudsman issued order to direct Marquez to produce the bank documents due to the unjustified delay by the Bank since the in camera inspection had already been extended twice.

Marquez filed for declaratory relief to clear the rights of petitioners under the bank secrecy law

ISSUE/S: Whether the in camera inspection orders are allowed as an exception to the bank secrecy law? NO

RULING:  The in camera inspection is not allowed. There being no pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction.

An exception to the bank secrecy law is when the money deposited is the subject matter of a litigation.

Therefore, it may be allowed on the ground of a pending case when:

o     The case is pending in court of competent jurisdiction

o     The account must be clearly identified

o     Inspection is limited to the subject matter of the pending case

o     The Bank personnel and account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection

o     Such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case

The order for in camera inspection is based on a pending investigation of the Ombudsman for violations of RA 3019, Sec 3(e)(g). Clearly, there is no pending litigation yet before a court of competent authority. It is only an investigation by the Ombudsman.