G.R. No. 94723 - Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Philippines

Petitioners: Minor Karen E. Salvacion (through her father and natural guardian, Federico N. Salvacion, Jr.) and spouses Federico and Evelina Salvacion.
Respondents: Central Bank of the Philippines (now Bangko Sentral), China Banking Corporation (CBC), and Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist.

On February 4–7, 1989, in Makati, respondent Bartelli lured 12-year-old Karen to his apartment, detained her for four days, and raped her multiple times (once on Feb. 4 and three times each on Feb. 5, 6, and 7).
Karen was rescued on February 7, 1989; Bartelli was arrested and detained at the Makati Municipal Jail.
Items recovered from Bartelli included: a dollar check (US$3,903.20), a peso passbook (Cocobank), a dollar account at China Bank (US$ Account No. 54105028-2), IDs, cash, keys, and a stuffed toy used in the seduction.
On February 16, 1989, the fiscal filed Criminal Case No. 801 (Serious Illegal Detention) and Criminal Case Nos. 802–805 (four counts of Rape).
On February 24, 1989, Bartelli escaped from jail; the trial court issued a warrant of arrest and hold departure order; the criminal cases were archived pending rearrest.

On February 16, 1989, petitioners filed Civil Case No. 89-3214 (RTC Makati) for damages with application for preliminary attachment.
On February 22, 1989, the RTC granted the application for preliminary attachment; a writ issued on February 28, 1989 upon a P100,000 bond.
On March 1, 1989, the deputy sheriff served a Notice of Garnishment on China Bank to reach Bartelli’s dollar deposit.
CBC’s March 13, 1989 reply invoked the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits (R.A. 1405); the sheriff countered that garnishment does not violate deposit secrecy when in custodia legis.
On March 20, 1989, CBC invoked Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, asserting foreign currency deposits are exempt from “attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court….”
Petitioners wrote the Central Bank on April 25, 1989 to clarify exceptions or amendments; the Central Bank’s May 26, 1989 letter replied that Sec. 113 is “absolute,” unamended, unrepealed, and intended to encourage dollar accounts.

Summons by publication was granted on April 10, 1989; Bartelli failed to answer and was declared in default on August 7, 1989.
On March 29, 1990, after ex parte hearing, the RTC rendered judgment for petitioners, awarding:

Notice of decision was published; the judgment became final. Petitioners moved to execute against Bartelli’s dollar deposit at CBC; CBC again invoked CB Circular No. 960, Sec. 113.

Petition filed for declaratory relief with prayer to restrain application/enforcement of Sec. 113, CB Circular No. 960; sought declaration of rights and invalidation of Sec. 113 and the statutory basis (R.A. 6426, Sec. 8 as amended by P.D. 1246).
Petitioners’ constitutional arguments:

Violation of substantive due process by effectively nullifying the remedy of garnishment/execution to satisfy a judgment.
Violation of equal protection by granting undue class privilege to foreign currency depositors.
Statute as safe harbor for wrongdoers who convert assets to foreign currency deposits to evade civil liability.
Excess of delegated quasi-legislative power by the Monetary Board in issuing CB Circular No. 960, Sec. 113, allegedly curtailing substantive rights under Rules of Court (Rule 57 on attachment; Rule 39 on execution).

CB: Sec. 113 merely echoes the law (R.A. 6426, Sec. 8 as amended by P.D. 1246); exemptions are statutory; purposes include growth of Foreign Currency Deposit System/Offshore Banking System and economic development; application is general and reasonable.
CBC: Expressed sympathy but claimed statutory restraint; asserted duty to comply with R.A. 6426/P.D. 1246 and CB Circular No. 960 despite harsh effects.

The Solicitor General opined the exemption does not cover deposits of a transient tourist used solely for safekeeping, as the law’s purpose is to attract foreign lenders/investors, not shield transients from accountability.

Whether the Supreme Court may entertain a petition for declaratory relief, despite original jurisdiction thereon lying with lower courts, and treat it under an appropriate remedial vehicle.

Whether the exemption from attachment/garnishment under Sec. 8 of R.A. 6426 (as amended by P.D. 1246) and Sec. 113 of CB Circular No. 960 applies to the foreign currency deposit of a foreign transient wrongdoer to defeat execution of a final civil judgment in favor of his Filipino victim.
Corollary: Whether respondents may be compelled to comply with the writ of execution and release the dollar deposit to satisfy the judgment notwithstanding said exemption.
Ancillary (raised but not necessarily resolved): Whether Sec. 113 of CB Circular No. 960 and the statutory basis violate substantive due process/equal protection or constitute undue delegation when read as absolutely barring attachment.