Case Digest (G.R. No. 207078)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Anti‑Money Laundering Council v. Roberto V. Ongpin, et al., G.R. No. 207078, June 20, 2022, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals’ May 7, 2013 Resolution in CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00066 which lifted, with one exception, a freeze order the Court of Appeals had earlier issued under Section 10 of the Anti‑Money Laundering Act (AMLA).The factual background centers on two large credit accommodations granted by the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in 2009 to Deltaventure Resources, Inc. — a P150,000,000 line (approved April 15, 2009) and a P510,000,000 line (approved November 4–5, 2009) — used to acquire DBP’s and related parties’ Philex shares, which were later part of a block sale to Two Rivers Pacific Holdings (partly owned by First Pacific/Manuel V. Pangilinan). Roberto V. Ongpin was the beneficial owner of Deltaventure and related corporations (Goldenmedia, Boerstar, Elkhound, Compact Holdings); Josephine A. Manalo and Ma. Lourdes A. Torres were officers of Deltaventure; several DBP officers (including Reynaldo David, Patricia Sto. Tomas, Miguel Romero, and others) approved the transactions. DBP Chair and President filed a Complaint‑Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman alleging violations of RA 8791, RA 7653 and RA 3019; the Ombudsman found probable cause as to Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against certain private and DBP actors.
Acting on an AMLC November 14, 2012 Resolution describing alleged irregularities (including an alleged P415,000,000 “opportunity trading loss” to DBP and alleged commingling into respondents’ accounts), the AMLC filed an ex parte Urgent Petition for Freeze Order (docketed CA‑G.R. AMLC No. 00066) on December 3, 2012 seeking to freeze 179 bank accounts of Ongpin, related corporations, and DBP officers. The Court of Appeals granted a 20‑day freeze on December 6, 2012 and, on December 13, 2012, granted the AMLC’s ex parte Application for Bank Inquiry (allowing inspection of account records). The AMLC moved on December 12, 2012 to extend the freeze to six months; the Court of Appeals extended the freeze on December 26, 2012 (with a reservation that it could act on motions to lift as it considered them) and ordered post‑issuance proceedings with notice.
Numerous account owners filed motions to lift the freeze and urged that the AMLC’s proofs were conjectural (criticizing AMLC’s “recomputed cash and investment balance” method and asserting legitimate sources). The Court of Appeals conducted post‑issuance hearings, required AMLC progress reports on its bank inquiry, and on May 7, 2013 lif...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Petition moot because the extended freeze order had expired by the time the Supreme Court was asked to review?
- Did the Court of Appeals’ failure to resolve motions to lift the freeze within the original 20‑day period result in an automatic lifting of the freeze order?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in jointly hearing the ex parte Petition for Freeze Order (Section 10) and the ex parte Application for Bank Inquiry (Section 11)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in requiring the AMLC to continue presenting evidence to justify continued freezing after finding probable cause?
- Was there probable cause to believe the frozen accounts (other than Bo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)