Case Digest (G.R. No. 174629)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council (AMLC) v. Hon. Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr., as Presiding Judge of RTC, Manila, Branch 34; Pantaleon Alvarez; and Lilia Cheng, G.R. No. 174629, February 14, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose in the aftermath of this Court’s decision in Agan v. PIATCO, which nullified the NAIA 3 concession to PIATCO and triggered investigations by the Ombudsman and the AMLC’s Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS). The CIS’s intelligence search identified multiple local bank accounts allegedly connected to transfers from a Hong Kong account. On 27 June 2005 the AMLC adopted Resolution No. 75 (2005) authorizing an application to inquire into accounts of, among others, Pantaleon Alvarez, Cheng Yong, and related persons; the AMLC later promulgated Resolution No. 121 (2005) expanding the accounts to be inquired into.
Acting on these resolutions, the AMLC filed an application (AMLC No. 05‑005) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati, Branch 138, which after hearing AMLC testimony and documents issued an order on 4 July 2005 authorizing inquiry into the listed accounts (the Makati RTC bank inquiry order). Pursuant thereto the CIS examined the named accounts. Thereafter the Republic, through the AMLC, filed an ex parte application before the Manila RTC, Branch 24 which resulted in an order dated 12 January 2006 (the Manila RTC bank inquiry order) authorizing inquiry into thirteen accounts and related web‑of‑accounts; the case was docketed SP Case No. 06‑114200.
Respondent Pantaleon Alvarez moved to stay enforcement and challenged the ex parte nature of the Manila order. The Manila RTC initially stayed enforcement (26 January 2006), then on 2 May 2006 granted the Republic’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the 12 January 2006 order. Alvarez’s further motions for reconsideration were denied (5 July 2006), and on 12 July 2006 the Manila RTC directed the AMLC to refrain from implementing the inquiry until the appeal period had expired. On 24–25 July 2006 the Manila RTC issued an Order (25 July 2006) clarifying that the 12 January 2006 Ex Parte Order could not be implemented against deposits/accounts listed in the AMLC application until Alvarez’s appeal was finally resolved, and ordered the AMLC not to disclose or publish information obtained in violation of the court’s May 11, 2006 Order. The 25 July 2006 order is one of the rulings assailed in this petition.
Meanwhile, Lilia Cheng (who asserted joint ownership of several accounts allegedly covered by the Makati and Manila orders) filed a petition with the Court of Appeals (CA), Tenth Division, seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and an injunction against the AMLC and the trial courts. The CA issued a Temporary Restraining Order on 1 August 2006 enjoining implementation of the Makati and Manila inquiry orders (the CA TRO), and on 22 September 2006 later granted a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA TRO and the subsequent preliminary injunction are among the rulings attacked. The Manila RTC issued a further order on 15 August 2006 reiterating that the Manila inquiry order could not be enforced until Alvarez’s appeal was finally resolved; this is the third assailed ruling.
The AMLC filed a consolidated petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court on 2 October 2006, assailing the Manila RTC orders of 25 July and 15 August 2006, the CA’s 1 August 2006 TRO, and the CA’s 22 September 2006 resolution granting the preliminary injunction. The Court initially issued a TRO (6 October 2006) and a supplemental TRO (13 October 2006) in favor of the AMLC but later suspended their implementat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Manila RTC and the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the orders (Manila RTC Orders of 25 July and 15 August 2006) and the CA TRO/Resolution (1 August and 22 September 2006) that deferred or enjoined enforcement of prior bank inquiry orders?
- Is an application for an order authorizing inquiry into or examination of bank accounts or investments under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended (AMLA), ex parte in nature, or does it require notice and hearing?
- What legal procedures and standards should govern proceedings for issuance of a bank inquiry order under Section 11 of the AMLA?
- Is it proper for the Supreme Court to decide the validity of the Makati and Manila bank inquiry orders at this tim...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)