G.R. No. L-49549 - Chua-Qua vs. Clave

The Supreme Court’s decision in Agan v. PIATCO nullified the NAIA-3 concession agreement awarded to PIATCO.
The Ombudsman and the Compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of the AMLC conducted probes into corrupt practices in the award of the NAIA-3 contracts.

On 27 June 2005, the AMLC adopted Resolution No. 75 (Series 2005), authorizing an application to inquire into the deposits of Pantaleon Alvarez, Wilfredo Trinidad, Alfredo Liongson, and Cheng Yong—including specified bank accounts—before the RTC Makati (Makati RTC No. 05-005).
On 9 December 2005, the AMLC adopted Resolution No. 121 (Series 2005), authorizing inquiry into additional accounts (including Alvarez’s DBS Bank account and Cheng Yong’s Metrobank accounts) before the Manila RTC (SP Case No. 06-114200).

The Makati RTC (Branch 138) issued an order on 4 July 2005 granting authority to examine the four individuals’ bank accounts. CIS proceeded with the inquiries.
The Manila RTC (Branch 24) issued an ex parte order on 12 January 2006 authorizing examination of thirteen accounts. Respondent Alvarez then filed multiple motions, prompting the Manila RTC to issue a series of orders (26 January, 2 May, 11 May, 25 July, and 15 August 2006) staying or clarifying enforcement of the January order until appeals were resolved.

On 10 July 2006, Lilia Cheng filed a certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus petition before the Court of Appeals, seeking injunctive relief against the Makati and Manila RTC inquiry orders. The CA issued a TRO on 1 August 2006.
On 2 October 2006, the AMLC filed a consolidated petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court, assailing the Manila RTC orders of 25 July and 15 August 2006, the CA’s TRO of 1 August 2006, and the CA’s resolution of 22 September 2006 granting a preliminary injunction.

Did the Manila RTC (Orders of 25 July and 15 August 2006) and the Court of Appeals (Resolution of 1 August 2006) commit grave abuse of discretion in staying enforcement of the bank inquiry orders issued under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9160, as amended?

Is an application for a bank inquiry order under Section 11 ex parte or must notice and hearing be given?
What procedures and standards govern the issuance of such orders?
Are bank inquiry orders susceptible to judicial challenge and review?

Should the Supreme Court now review the validity of the Makati RTC order of 4 July 2005 and the Manila RTC order of 12 January 2006 despite the pending CA proceedings challenging those orders (CA-G.R. SP No. 95198)?