I. SHORT TITLE MARQUEZ vs.

DESIERTO
II. FULL TITLE: LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION
BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ANIANO A.
DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO,
JR., MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., in
their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Panel, respectively,
respondents. G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001, J. Pardo
III. TOPIC: Special Commercial Laws – Secrecy of Bank Deposits

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Petitioner Marquez, a Branch Manager of Union Bank, received an order from the Ombudsman to
produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts
maintained at said bank. The basis of Ombudsman in ordering an in camera inspection of the accounts
was a trail of managers checks purchased by one Trivinio, a respondent in the case pending with the
office of the Ombudsman. It appeared that Trivinio purchased MCs at Traders Royal Bank (TRB) and 11
of MCs in were deposited and credited to an account maintained at Union Bank. Marquez agreed to an in-
camera inspection. However, later on, Marquez wrote the Ombudsman that the accounts in question could
not readily be identified since the checks were issued in cash or bearer and asked for time to respond to
the order because these accounts had long been dormant, hence, were not covered by the new account
number generated by the UB system.

The Ombudsman responded, notwithstanding the fact that the checks were payable to cash or bearer, the
name of the depositor(s) could easily be identified since the account numbers where said checks were
deposited were identified in the order. Even assuming that the accounts were already classified as
dormant accounts, the bank was still required to preserve the recordings pertaining to the accounts within
a certain period of time as required by existing banking rules and regulations. The Ombudsman then
issued an order directing Marquez to produce the bank documents relative to the accounts in issue, stating
that her persistent refusal to comply with the order is unjustified and is punishable as indirect contempt.

V. STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Marquez and UBP filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injunction with the RTC against
the Ombudsman. The latter issued another order statin that unless she appeared before the Fact Finding
and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) with the documents requested, Marquez would be charged with indirect
contempt and obstruction of justice. The RTC denied petitioner’s prayer for a TRO. Petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration but was denied.

Petitioner received a copy of the motion to cite her for contempt and reiterated that she had no intention to
disobey the orders of the Ombudsman. However, she wanted to be clarified as to how she would comply
with the orders without breaking any law, particularly RA 1405.

VI. ISSUE:
Whether or not the order of the Ombudsman to have in camera inspection of the questioned account is
allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (RA 1405)

VII. RULING:
No, Supreme Court ruled 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 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".27

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.

Zone 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
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, 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.

VIII. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we GRANT the petition. We order the Ombudsman to cease and desist from
requiring Union Bank Manager Lourdes T. Marquez, or anyone in her place to comply with the order
dated October 14,1998, and similar orders. No costs.