Marquez vs.

Destiero

Doctrine: Therefore, it may be allowed on the ground of a pending case when: The case is
pending in court of competent jurisdiction; The account must be clearly identified; Inspection
is limited to the subject matter of the pending case; The Bank personnel and account holder
must be notified to be present during the inspection; Such inspection may cover only the
account identified in the pending case

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 or not the in camera inspection orders are allowed as an exception to the
bank secrecy law.

RULING: No. 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.