Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Marquez vs. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    This case discusses whether in camera inspections of bank documents are allowed as an exception to the Philippine Bank Secrecy Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the in camera inspection ordered by the Ombudsman was not permitted because there was no pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction, which is required as an exception. The Court outlined the requirements for an in camera inspection to be allowed under the Bank Secrecy Law's exception for pending litigation: the case must be pending before a court, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection must be limited to the subject matter of the pending case, bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present, and the inspection can only cover the identified account in the pending case

    Copyright:

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

    Marquez vs. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    99 views1 page
    This case discusses whether in camera inspections of bank documents are allowed as an exception to the Philippine Bank Secrecy Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the in camera inspection ordered by the Ombudsman was not permitted because there was no pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction, which is required as an exception. The Court outlined the requirements for an in camera inspection to be allowed under the Bank Secrecy Law's exception for pending litigation: the case must be pending before a court, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection must be limited to the subject matter of the pending case, bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present, and the inspection can only cover the identified account in the pending case

    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?

    This case discusses whether in camera inspections of bank documents are allowed as an exception to the Philippine Bank Secrecy Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the in camera inspection ordered by the Ombudsman was not permitted because there was no pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction, which is required as an exception. The Court outlined the requirements for an in camera inspection to be allowed under the Bank Secrecy Law's exception for pending litigation: the case must be pending before a court, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection must be limited to the subject matter of the pending case, bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present, and the inspection can only cover the identified account in the pending case

    Copyright:

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

    Marquez vs. Desierto

    Uploaded by

    Michelle Vale Cruz
    This case discusses whether in camera inspections of bank documents are allowed as an exception to the Philippine Bank Secrecy Law. The Supreme Court ruled that the in camera inspection ordered by the Ombudsman was not permitted because there was no pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction, which is required as an exception. The Court outlined the requirements for an in camera inspection to be allowed under the Bank Secrecy Law's exception for pending litigation: the case must be pending before a court, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection must be limited to the subject matter of the pending case, bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present, and the inspection can only cover the identified account in the pending case

    Copyright:

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

    MARQUEZ v DESIERTO

    G.R. NO. 135882/ June 27, 2001


    Pardo, J.
    TOPIC: BANKING LAWS (BANK SECRECY LAW)

    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 managers 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.

    You might also like