Case Summary (G.R. No. 155650)
Procedural History
On February 20, 1961, the prosecutors ordered disclosure at a hearing. The bank invoked Republic Act No. 1405’s confidentiality provisions and sought protection. Facing contempt threats under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), the bank filed a declaratory relief action in the Manila Court of First Instance. The trial court upheld the prosecutors’ power to compel disclosure, prompting this appeal.
Applicable Statutes
• Republic Act No. 1405 (1955), Section 2: Declares all bank deposits “absolutely confidential” except (1) with depositor’s written permission; (2) in impeachment; (3) by court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases; (4) when the deposit is the subject of litigation.
• Republic Act No. 1405, Section 5: Penalizes unlawful disclosure.
• Republic Act No. 3019 (1960), Section 8: Mandates that bank deposits of a public official under unexplained-wealth inquiry “shall be taken into consideration … notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.”
Issue
Does Section 8 of RA 3019 implicitly amend or repeal by implication the confidentiality restrictions of Section 2, RA 1405, thereby authorizing compelled disclosure of a public official’s bank deposits during an unexplained-wealth investigation?
Petitioners’ Contentions
- RA 3019 is a general law that cannot override the specific confidentiality scheme of RA 1405 absent express repeal, per the presumption against implied repeal.
- Allowing compelled disclosure would frustrate the policy of encouraging bank deposits for economic development, as declared in RA 1405.
Court’s Analysis on Statutory Conflict
• Inherent Repugnancy: RA 1405 proclaims absolute confidentiality save four exceptions; RA 3019 mandates deposit examination “notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.”
• Legislative Intent: When two statutes conflict irreconcilably, the later enactment’s clear purpose prevails as an implied amendment.
• Analogous Precedent: People v. De Venecia held that a later statute may carve out an exception to an earlier o
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 155650)
Facts of the Case
- In early 1961 special prosecutors Emilio A. Gancayco and Florentino Flor of the Department of Justice issued a subpoena duces tecum requiring Philippine National Bank (PNB) to produce the deposit records of Ernesto T. Jimenez, then under investigation for unexplained wealth.
- The hearing was set for 10 a.m. on February 20, 1961.
- PNB, through its president Eduardo Z. Romualdez, refused to comply, invoking Republic Act No. 1405 (the “Bank Secrecy Law”) and its penal sanctions for unauthorized disclosure.
- The prosecutors insisted on production under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), threatening contempt proceedings.
- PNB filed a declaratory relief in the Manila Court of First Instance to determine its obligation under these statutes.
- After trial—during which Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, principal author of RA 3019, testified—the trial court upheld the prosecutors’ authority to compel disclosure.
- PNB and its co-plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue
- Whether a bank may be compelled, over its objection, to disclose deposit records of a public official under investigation for unexplained wealth, in light of:
• The absolute confidentiality of bank deposits under RA 1405, and
• The mandatory consideration of bank deposits in unexplained wealth proceedings under RA 3019, Section 8.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
- Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law)
• Section 2: Declares “all deposits of whatever nature” absolutely confidential and not examinable except:
– Upon written permission of the depositor
– In cases of impeachment
– Upon order of a competent court in bribery or dereliction of duty cases
– When the money is the subject matter of the litigation
• Section 5: Penalizes violators with up to five years’ impri