Title
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank vs. Purisima
Case
G.R. No. 56429
Decision Date
May 28, 1988
Banco Filipino challenged a subpoena for bank records in a graft investigation, arguing it violated deposit secrecy laws. The Supreme Court upheld the subpoena, ruling that anti-graft laws allow scrutiny of unexplained wealth, even in accounts of associates, to prevent corruption.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 56429)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • The case involves a special civil action of certiorari filed by Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (BF Bank) against the Hon. Fidel Purisima, the Tanodbayan (Ombudsman), and other respondents.
    • The central issue is whether the "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits" (R.A. No. 1405) prohibits the production of bank records via subpoena duces tecum in connection with an investigation under the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" (R.A. No. 3019).
  2. The Accusation:

    • Manuel Caturla, a special agent of the Bureau of Customs, was accused by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of acquiring property manifestly out of proportion to his salary and lawful income, in violation of R.A. No. 3019.
  3. The Subpoena Duces Tecum:

    • The Tanodbayan issued a subpoena duces tecum to BF Bank, requiring it to produce certified copies of bank records related to Caturla, his wife, children, and associates, dating back to 1969.
    • Caturla moved to quash the subpoena, arguing it violated the secrecy of bank deposits under R.A. No. 1405. The Tanodbayan denied the motion and expanded the scope of the subpoena to include additional individuals and entities.
  4. BF Bank's Action:

    • BF Bank filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a judicial declaration on whether compliance with the subpoena would violate R.A. No. 1405.
    • The bank also requested a preliminary injunction to restrain the Tanodbayan from enforcing the subpoena. Judge Fidel Purisima denied the application for a restraining order, prompting BF Bank to file the instant certiorari action.
  5. BF Bank's Arguments:

    • The subpoena constitutes a "fishing expedition" or "general warrant," violating constitutional rights.
    • The inquiry into bank records of private individuals or public officials not under investigation is impermissible.
    • The refusal to grant a restraining order was a premature adjudication of the issue and a judicial sufferance of a transgression of the bank deposits statute.

Issue:

  1. Whether the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Tanodbayan violates the "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits" (R.A. No. 1405).
  2. Whether the refusal to grant a preliminary injunction or restraining order constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
  3. Whether the inquiry into bank records of individuals other than the public official under investigation is permissible under R.A. No. 3019.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.