G.R. No. 205879 - Skunac Corp. vs. Sylianteng

Ask AI

G.R. No. 205879: Skunac Corp. vs. Sylianteng

Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.

New Chat Started

Ask AI

Title Source: Supreme Court: Sibayan vs. Alda

Case: G.R. No. 233395

Decision Date: Jan 17, 2018

Petitioner challenges BSP's denial of discovery requests in an administrative case involving alleged unauthorized bank deductions, citing bank secrecy and due process issues. Supreme Court affirms denial, upholding summary nature of proceedings and confidentiality of bank accounts.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 205879)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Initiation of Administrative Case

Respondent Elizabeth O. Alda, through her attorney-in-fact Ruby O. Alda, filed a letter-complaint with the Office of Special Investigation, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (OSI-BSP), charging petitioner Norlina G. Sibayan, then Assistant Manager and Marketing Officer of BDO San Fernando, La Union Branch, with:

Unauthorized deductions from Elizabeth’s BDO Savings Account No. 0970097875, reducing the balance from ₱1,071,561.73 (July 22, 2008) to ₱334.47 (October 31, 2008).
Failure to post two manager’s checks (UCPB Check No. 0000005197 for ₱2,743,346 and BPI Check No. 0000002688 for ₱2,237,341.89) deposited October 27, 2008.

The OSI-BSP issued a Resolution dated June 13, 2012 finding a prima facie case for Conducting Business in an Unsafe or Unsound Manner (RA 8791, § 56.2) against petitioner and transmitted the case to the Office of the General Counsel and Legal Services (OGCLS-BSP).

Underlying Criminal Case and Related Transactions

Petitioner alleged harassment, citing a prior criminal case BDO filed against Elizabeth, Ruby, and others for theft, estafa, and RA 8484 violations involving erroneous credits to Ruby’s Visa Electron Fastcard account (Account No. 4559-6872-3866-2036) and subsequent laundering of ₱64,229,297.50 overseas.
Ruby executed in favor of BDO:

An Undertaking with Authorization (Oct. 21, 2008) to pay the erroneously credited amounts and to authorize set-off against any of her accounts.
A Special Power of Attorney (Oct. 22, 2008) permitting BDO to set off against her assets.
A Deed of Dation in Payment (Oct. 22, 2008) conveying her interests in certain bank accounts—including Elizabeth’s BDO account and the UCPB and BPI accounts of Ferdinand and Jovelyn Oriente—to satisfy her debt.

Attempts at Discovery and BSP Administrative Orders

Petitioner moved before OGCLS-BSP for:

Production of UCPB Account No. 2351047157 and BPI Account No. 85890237923 statements.
Leave to serve written interrogatories on Elizabeth, Jovelyn, and Ferdinand.

In its June 9, 2014 Order, OGCLS-BSP denied both motions, holding that:

Bank deposit secrecy under RA 1405 barred production without depositor consent.
Written interrogatories to prosecution witnesses were unnecessary in summary administrative proceedings.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 26, 2014.

Court of Appeals and Supreme Court Proceedings

Petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA; in its October 25, 2016 Decision (and August 9, 2017 Resolution on reconsideration), the CA affirmed the OGCLS-BSP orders for lack of grave abuse of discretion.
Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Issues:

Whether OGCLS-BSP gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s Request to Answer Written Interrogatories addressed to prosecution witnesses.
Whether OGCLS-BSP gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s Motion for Production of UCPB and BPI bank documents under Rule 27, Section 1, Rules of Court.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

END