Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 384 views

    Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882

    Uploaded by

    Rhenfacel Manlegro
    This case involves an order from the Ombudsman to the petitioner bank branch manager to produce bank documents for an in camera inspection regarding accounts related to an investigation. The petitioner agreed to the inspection but later asked for more time due to difficulty identifying the accounts. The Ombudsman denied the request. There are two issues: whether the petitioner can be held in contempt, and whether the inspection is allowed under the law on secrecy of bank deposits. The court ruled that the inspection is not allowed, as there is no pending case before a court, and the account was not clearly identified or limited to the scope of such a case. Invasions of privacy are restricted under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

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

    Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882

    Uploaded by

    Rhenfacel Manlegro
    384 views1 page
    This case involves an order from the Ombudsman to the petitioner bank branch manager to produce bank documents for an in camera inspection regarding accounts related to an investigation. The petitioner agreed to the inspection but later asked for more time due to difficulty identifying the accounts. The Ombudsman denied the request. There are two issues: whether the petitioner can be held in contempt, and whether the inspection is allowed under the law on secrecy of bank deposits. The court ruled that the inspection is not allowed, as there is no pending case before a court, and the account was not clearly identified or limited to the scope of such a case. Invasions of privacy are restricted under Philippine law.

    Original Description:

    Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves an order from the Ombudsman to the petitioner bank branch manager to produce bank documents for an in camera inspection regarding accounts related to an investigation. The petitioner agreed to the inspection but later asked for more time due to difficulty identifying the accounts. The Ombudsman denied the request. There are two issues: whether the petitioner can be held in contempt, and whether the inspection is allowed under the law on secrecy of bank deposits. The court ruled that the inspection is not allowed, as there is no pending case before a court, and the account was not clearly identified or limited to the scope of such a case. Invasions of privacy are restricted under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    384 views1 page

    Marquez v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882

    Uploaded by

    Rhenfacel Manlegro
    This case involves an order from the Ombudsman to the petitioner bank branch manager to produce bank documents for an in camera inspection regarding accounts related to an investigation. The petitioner agreed to the inspection but later asked for more time due to difficulty identifying the accounts. The Ombudsman denied the request. There are two issues: whether the petitioner can be held in contempt, and whether the inspection is allowed under the law on secrecy of bank deposits. The court ruled that the inspection is not allowed, as there is no pending case before a court, and the account was not clearly identified or limited to the scope of such a case. Invasions of privacy are restricted under Philippine law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LOURDES T. MARQUEZ vs.

    DESIERTO
    FACTS: Petitioner 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 petitioner is the branch manager. 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.
    FFIB panel met in conference with 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. However, 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 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 Managers Checks (MCs), as shown at its dorsal portion and as cleared by the
    Philippine Clearing House, not the International Corporate Bank. Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner
    to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in issue. In the meantime the lower court denied petitioners
    prayer for a temporary restraining order. The Ombudsman filed a motion to dismiss the petition for declaratory
    relief 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. 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).
    ISSUE:(1) whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce the documents
    requested by the Ombudsman.
    (2)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)
    RULING: NO, it is not allowed.
    RATIONALE: 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
    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 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.
    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

    You might also like