Case Summary (G.R. No. 151212)
Key Dates
Filing of Complaint: 1998 before RTC, Branch 58, Cebu City
RTC Subpoena Order: February 23 and April 16, 1999
Court of Appeals Decision: October 29, 1999
Supreme Court Decision: December 18, 2006
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided after 1990)
Republic Act No. 6426, as amended by Presidential Decrees Nos. 1035 and 1246 (Foreign Currency Deposit Act), Section 8 – declares foreign currency deposits “absolutely confidential” and exempts them from judicial process except upon written permission of the depositor.
Procedural History
- RTC issued subpoena ad testificandum directing China Bank employees to disclose in whose name the Citibank check proceeds were deposited.
- China Bank moved for reconsideration, contending Section 8 bars disclosure of any information relating to foreign currency deposits, including depositor identity.
- RTC denied the motion in part and limited the inquiry to the name of depositor.
- China Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which denied relief and upheld the RTC order.
- China Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
I. Whether Section 8 of R.A. 6426, as amended, absolutely prohibits disclosure of the depositor’s identity or only protects the foreign currency deposit itself.
II. Whether Jose Gotianuy (now represented by his estate) is a “depositor” entitled to seek disclosure.
III. Whether China Bank, as custodian, may invoke Section 8 in defense of its client’s confidentiality without the depositor’s written consent.
Statutory Interpretation and Precedents
• The plain language of Section 8 protects “foreign currency deposits” and exempts them from attachment or inquiry, but does not expressly extend confidentiality to the depositor’s identity.
• Intengan v. Court of Appeals held the only exception to deposit secrecy is written depositor permission.
• Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines recognized that, in exceptional circumstances, a strict application of deposit secrecy that would perpetuate injustice may be relaxed.
• Under PD 1034 and PD 1246’s whereas clauses, the confidentiality shield aims to encourage foreign currency inflow—not to serve as a tool for wrongdoing or concealment.
Court of Appeals Rationale
• The CA emphasized that Section 8 covers the deposit itself, not depositor identity.
• Since Jose Gotianuy’s name appears as co-payee on the Citibank checks, he qualifies as a co-depositor of the funds now in China Bank.
• His request for a subpoena thus constitutes his own written permission to disclose the depositor’s identity under Section 8.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
• The Supreme Court agreed that Section 8’s protection does not extend to the depositor’s name.
• Jose Gotianuy, as co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 151212)
Facts of the Case
- Jose “Joseph” Gotianuy filed Complaint CEB-21445 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, against his daughter Mary Margaret Dee and son-in-law George Dee for recovery of sums and annulment of property transfers.
- He alleged Mary Margaret Dee stole his US dollar deposits with Citibank N.A. amounting to at least P35,000,000.00 and US$864,000.00 by withdrawing via checks and depositing them at China Banking Corporation (China Bank).
- He also accused George Dee of transferring Gotianuy’s real properties and shares of stock into his own name without consideration.
- Jose Gotianuy died during the trial; his daughter Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo substituted him and presented six Citibank checks (Exhs. “AAA” to “AAA-5”) dated September 29–October 9, 1997, payable to “GOTIANUY: JOSE AND/OR DEE: MARY MARGARET,” in amounts of US$5,937.52; US$7,197.59; US$1,198.94; US$989.04; US$766,011.97; and US$83,053.10.
Procedural History
- February 23, 1999: RTC issued subpoena ad testificandum requiring China Bank employees Isabel Yap and Cristota Labios to testify on March 1 regarding the Citibank checks and “other matters material and relevant.”
- China Bank moved for reconsideration; April 16, 1999: RTC denied in part and granted in part, limiting testimony to disclose only the name(s) in which Exhs. “AAA” to “AAA-5” were deposited.
- China Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 52661).
- October 29, 1999: Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s April 16, 1999 order.
- China Bank elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising questions on statutory interpretation, ownership of the deposit, and its secrecy obligations.
Legal Issues
- Wh