Title
China Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 140687
Decision Date
Dec 18, 2006
Jose Gotianuy accused daughter Mary Margaret Dee of stealing his foreign currency deposits. Court ruled disclosure of depositor's name doesn't violate secrecy laws, affirming Gotianuy's right to inquire as co-payee.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 146749)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of the Complaint
    • Jose “Joseph” Gotianuy filed a complaint (CEB-21445) before RTC Cebu City, Branch 58, against his daughter Mary Margaret Dee and son-in-law George Dee for recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales of real properties and shares of stock.
    • He alleged Mary Margaret Dee stole his Citibank US dollar deposits amounting to approximately ₱35,000,000.00 and US$864,000.00 by receiving Citibank checks and depositing them at China Banking Corporation. He also accused George Dee of fraudulent transfers of real properties and shares without consideration.
  • Presentation of Evidence and RTC Subpoena
    • Jose Gotianuy died during trial and was substituted by his daughter, Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo, who presented six Citibank checks drawn on Jose’s US dollar placements:
1) Check No. 69003194405412 (US$5,937.52, 9/29/1997) 2) Check No. 69003194405296 (US$7,197.59, 9/29/1997) 3) Check No. 69003194405414 (US$1,198.94, 9/29/1997) 4) Check No. 69003194405413 (US$989.04, 9/29/1997) 5) Check No. 69003194405297 (US$766,011.97, 10/1/1997) 6) Check No. 69003194405339 (US$83,053.10, 10/9/1997)
  • On February 23, 1999, the RTC issued a subpoena ad testificandum ordering China Bank employees Cristota Labios and Isabel Yap to testify on the Citibank checks and “other matters material and relevant.”
  • RTC Order on Reconsideration and Subsequent Appeals
    • China Bank moved for reconsideration. On April 16, 1999, the RTC partially granted the motion, limiting testimony solely to the identity of the depositor of the foreign currency fund represented by the checks, denying inquiry into other matters.
    • China Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which on October 29, 1999 denied the petition and affirmed the RTC order.
    • China Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising questions on the interpretation and application of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by P.D. Nos. 1035 and 1246 (the Foreign Currency Deposit Act).

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals misinterpreted Section 8 of R.A. 6426, as amended, by allowing disclosure of the name of the depositor, contrary to the law’s purpose of absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits.
  • Whether private respondent (Jose Gotianuy or his estate) is the owner of the foreign currency deposit and entitled to invoke the Court’s aid in compelling disclosure.
  • Whether petitioner (China Bank) can invoke Section 8 on behalf of its client (the depositor) to bar disclosure of the depositor’s identity without written consent.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.