Case Digest (G.R. No. 56429)
Facts:
The case involves Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank (petitioner) against Hon. Fidel Purisima, Hon. Vicente Ericta, and Jose Del Fierro (respondents). The events leading to this case began when Manuel Caturla, a special agent of the Bureau of Customs, was accused by the Bureau of Internal Revenue of acquiring property that was allegedly disproportionate to his lawful income, in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. During the preliminary investigation, the Tanodbayan issued a subpoena duces tecum to Banco Filipino, requiring the bank to produce certified copies of all banking transactions related to Caturla, his wife Purita, their children, and several associates, dating back to 1969. Caturla filed a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that compliance would violate the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. No. 1405). However, the Tanodbayan denied this motion and subsequently issued a second subpoena that expanded the scope of the records required. Ba...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 56429)
Facts:
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).
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Whether the subpoena duces tecum issued by the Tanodbayan violates the "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits" (R.A. No. 1405).
- Whether the refusal to grant a preliminary injunction or restraining order constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
- 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)