Case Digest (G.R. No. 94723)
Facts:
Petitioners Karen E. Salvacion, a minor through her father and natural guardian, and her parents sought relief after obtaining a final judgment for damages against respondent Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist who detained and raped the child from February 4 to 7, 1989; the Makati RTC issued a writ of preliminary attachment, the defendant escaped custody, was declared in default, and the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners on March 29, 1990.
After issuance of a writ of execution, respondent China Banking Corporation refused to honor garnishment of Bartelli’s dollar account, invoking Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and R.A. No. 6426 as amended by P.D. 1246; the Central Bank of the Philippines confirmed the provision’s absolute application, prompting petitioners to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- May the Court entertain and treat this petition for declaratory relief as a petition for mandamus despite lack of original jurisdiction?
- Does Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, bar attachment or execution of a foreign currency deposit made by a transient tourist like respondent Bartelli?
Ruling:
The Court treated the petition as one for mandamus and entertained it because the case presented issues of far‑reaching public consequence and required prompt resolution. The Court held that Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and P.D. 1246, insofar as they amend Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426, were inapplicable in the peculiar circumstances of this case and ordered respondents to comply with the writ of execution and release Bartelli’s dollar deposit to satisfy the judgment.
Ratio:
The Court observed that the exemption was copied from Section 8 of R.A. No. 6426 and that the legislative and regulatory purpose was to attract and protect foreign lenders, investors and offshore banking deposits, not short‑term deposits by transients or tourists. Applying purposive construction and the presumption in Article 10 of the New Civil Code favoring justice where doubt exists, the Court found that extending the protection to Bartelli’s transient deposit would frustrate the injured national’s substantive rights and produce unjust results, and therefore the exemption did not apply in this case.
Doctrine:
- The Supreme Court may treat a petition for declaratory relief as one for mandamus when the controversy raises questions of far‑reaching public importance requiring immediate resolution.
- Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and protections under R.A. No. 6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, are intended to encourage foreign lenders and offshore banking and do not extend to transient tourist deposits not contemplated by the statutes.
- Where statutory application is doubtful and justice requires, courts shall interpret laws in accordance with Article 10 of the New Civil Code to prevent unjust enrichment or inequitable results.