Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 225 views

    Marquez v. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    The Ombudsman ordered Marquez, the branch manager of Union Bank, to produce bank documents for in camera inspection regarding accounts involved in a pending case. Marquez did not comply, claiming the accounts could not be identified. The Ombudsman warned Marquez of contempt. Instead of complying, Marquez and Union Bank filed for declaratory relief regarding the Ombudsman's power to inspect accounts. The Supreme Court held that an in camera inspection is only allowed if there is a pending case in a court of competent jurisdiction clearly identifying the account, with the inspection limited to the pending case and bank/account holder notified and present. There was no pending case here warranting inspection of the accounts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Marquez v. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    225 views2 pages
    The Ombudsman ordered Marquez, the branch manager of Union Bank, to produce bank documents for in camera inspection regarding accounts involved in a pending case. Marquez did not comply, claiming the accounts could not be identified. The Ombudsman warned Marquez of contempt. Instead of complying, Marquez and Union Bank filed for declaratory relief regarding the Ombudsman's power to inspect accounts. The Supreme Court held that an in camera inspection is only allowed if there is a pending case in a court of competent jurisdiction clearly identifying the account, with the inspection limited to the pending case and bank/account holder notified and present. There was no pending case here warranting inspection of the accounts.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Ombudsman ordered Marquez, the branch manager of Union Bank, to produce bank documents for in camera inspection regarding accounts involved in a pending case. Marquez did not comply, claiming the accounts could not be identified. The Ombudsman warned Marquez of contempt. Instead of complying, Marquez and Union Bank filed for declaratory relief regarding the Ombudsman's power to inspect accounts. The Supreme Court held that an in camera inspection is only allowed if there is a pending case in a court of competent jurisdiction clearly identifying the account, with the inspection limited to the pending case and bank/account holder notified and present. There was no pending case here warranting inspection of the accounts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    225 views2 pages

    Marquez v. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Zaira Gem Gonzales
    The Ombudsman ordered Marquez, the branch manager of Union Bank, to produce bank documents for in camera inspection regarding accounts involved in a pending case. Marquez did not comply, claiming the accounts could not be identified. The Ombudsman warned Marquez of contempt. Instead of complying, Marquez and Union Bank filed for declaratory relief regarding the Ombudsman's power to inspect accounts. The Supreme Court held that an in camera inspection is only allowed if there is a pending case in a court of competent jurisdiction clearly identifying the account, with the inspection limited to the pending case and bank/account holder notified and present. There was no pending case here warranting inspection of the accounts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Marquez v.

    Desierto, 359 SCRA 772 (2001)


    FACTS: Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, 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 Marquez is the branch manager. The accounts to be inspected are involved
    in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled, Fact-Finding and Intelligence
    Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et. al. Marquez failed to comply with the order
    due to the fact that the bank could not identify the account since the checks were
    issued in cash or bearer.
    OMB found the explanation unacceptable and warned Marquez that her failure to
    comply would subject her in pain of contempt and prosecution for obstruction.
    Instead of complying, Marquez together with Union Bank filed a petition for
    declaratory relief seeking a definite ruling as regards her rights under RA 1405 and
    the power of OMB to inspect bank deposit under Sec. 15 RA6770. Prayer for TRO
    was denied by TC. OMB moved to dismiss but was denied.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the order of the OMB to have an in camera inspection of the
    questioned account pending investigation at its office is allowed as an exception to
    the law on secrecy of bank deposits.
    HELD: 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
    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.

    You might also like