G.R. No. L-321 - Vda. de Tuazon vs. De Javellana

Petitioner BCD Foreign Exchange Corp. (BCD) is a registered domestic corporation engaged in foreign exchange business.
Respondent Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) represents the Republic of the Philippines and is tasked with implementing the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (AMLA), as amended by RA 9194 and RA 10365.
Respondent Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank) is a private domestic bank.

On 28 September 2016, AMLC filed an Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of a Freeze Order under Section 10 of AMLA, related to Section 44 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, involving various bank accounts, including those of Powleean Electronics Marketing, Inc. (Powleean), its incorporators and directors, and several individuals.
The petition stemmed from buy-bust operations resulting in arrests of Claudio Bontilao, Jr. and Jovannie Quirante Llego for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, with seizure of deposit slips bearing names connected to Powleean and other individuals.

AMLC found Powleean’s declared operations questionable: no legitimate business activities at declared addresses, low paid-up capital (P31,250.00), yet with billions in transactions (over P1.8 billion in deposits and P2.2 billion in withdrawals from 2015-2016).
Further investigation identified Chen Jiali (an incorporator/director of Powleean) with suspicious banking transactions exceeding P7.1 billion from 2005-2016 and involvement in a prior AMLA case receiving funds linked to drug trafficking.

On 29 September 2016, the Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Freeze Order effective for six months covering the specified accounts and related web of accounts, directing the involved banks to submit detailed returns.
Metrobank submitted a Fourth Supplemental Return on 26 October 2016, identifying accounts in BCD’s name as recipients of funds from frozen accounts: an old closed account (No. 7-285-51225-1) and the Subject BCD Account (No. 7-285-51261-8) containing P48,539,839.65.
Metrobank notified BCD of the inclusion of these accounts as materially linked to frozen accounts.

BCD filed a Motion on 15 February 2017 to lift the Freeze Order on its Subject Account, arguing Metrobank had no authority to freeze its accounts and that the freeze violated the Bank Secrecy Law.
The CA denied the Motion on 21 March 2017, holding:

Metrobank acted in accordance with the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of AMLA by identifying related accounts.
There was insufficient proof from BCD on legitimacy of transactions related to Chen Jiali.
The freeze fell under exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Law due to probable cause linking the funds to unlawful activity.

The Freeze Order expired on 30 March 2017.
The Republic filed a civil forfeiture case with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Manila, obtaining Provisional Asset Preservation and Asset Preservation Orders covering the Subject BCD Account.
The case was remanded and consolidated with the forfeiture case.
BCD filed a Motion to Discharge re: the Subject BCD Account which was initially granted but later reversed upon the Republic’s motion for reconsideration by the RTC.
BCD elevated the case to the Supreme Court via the instant petition.

Whether the CA erred in maintaining the Freeze Order and denying BCD’s Motion to Lift the Freeze Order on its Subject BCD Account.
Whether Metrobank had the authority to freeze the Subject BCD Account and identify it as materially linked to the frozen accounts under the AMLA and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Whether the freeze of BCD’s Subject Account constitutes a violation of the Bank Secrecy Law.