Case Summary (G.R. No. 207078)
Petitioner
The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the AMLC, challenges the Court of Appeals’ resolution lifting a freeze order over 179 bank accounts allegedly involved in money-laundering predicate crimes.
Respondents
Primary respondents are Roberto V. Ongpin, Josephine A. Manalo, Ma. Lourdes A. Torres, their affiliated corporations, certain former DBP officers, and the covered banking institutions holding the frozen accounts.
Key Dates
• April 7–15, 2009: DBP grants P150 million credit line to Deltaventure
• November 4–5, 2009: DBP grants P510 million credit line and sells 50 million Philex shares to Deltaventure/Goldenmedia
• December 6, 2012: Court of Appeals issues 20-day freeze order over 179 accounts
• December 26, 2012: Freeze order extended for six months
• May 7, 2013: Court of Appeals lifts freeze order except Boerstar account
• May 24, 2013: AMLC files petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (search‐and‐seizure and due-process guarantees)
• Republic Act No. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law)
• Republic Act No. 9160, as amended by RA 9194, RA 10167, RA 10365, RA 10927 (Anti-Money Laundering Act) – Sections 10 (freeze order) and 11 (bank inquiry)
• A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC (Rules of Procedure for AMLA remedies)
Factual Background
Deltaventure, beneficially owned by former DBP director Ongpin, applied for a P150 million DBP credit line in April 2009, pledging Philweb shares. In November 2009, Ongpin-owned Goldenmedia used a P510 million DBP credit line to acquire 50 million Philex shares, immediately pledged back to DBP. DBP and Goldenmedia, with other entities, sold Philex shares to Two Rivers at P21 per share, allegedly causing DBP an opportunity loss of P415 million, which AMLC presumed was realized by Ongpin and associates.
Ombudsman and AMLC Findings
• Office of the Ombudsman (September 2012) found probable cause to indict Ongpin, Manalo, Torres, and DBP officers for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
• AMLC (November 2012) found probable cause that the two DBP loans were irregular, that share-value pledges were speculative, and that opportunity losses were diverted to respondent accounts.
• AMLC authorized ex parte petitions for freeze orders (Section 10) and bank inquiries (Section 11) over 179 accounts.
Freeze Order and Bank Inquiry Proceedings
• December 3, 2012: AMLC files ex parte petition for freeze order before Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals grantes 20-day freeze (Dec 6–26).
• December 11, 2012: AMLC files ex parte application for bank inquiry.
• Respondents file motions to lift freeze order, alleging lack of tainted funds and lawful transactions.
• December 26, 2012: Court of Appeals extends freeze order for six months with reservation for reconsideration.
• Post-issuance hearings and motions for severance and reconsideration follow; CA denies severance and schedules progress hearings.
Court of Appeals’ May 7, 2013 Resolution
The Court of Appeals concludes that, except for Boerstar Corporation’s Bank of Commerce Account No. 900000028241 (the depository for P2.1 billion in share-sale proceeds), the AMLC failed to show probable cause linking the remaining frozen accounts to the unlawful DBP-loan and share transactions. All other freeze orders are lifted.
Issues Presented
- Mootness of the petition after expiration of the extended freeze order
- Effect of failing to rule on motions to lift the freeze order within the original 20-day period
- Legality of jointly hearing freeze-order and bank-inquiry proceedings
- Whether the CA properly required AMLC to present ongoing evidence to justify continued freezing
- Existence of probable cause linking frozen accounts to money-laundering predicate crimes
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Holding
• Mootness: Despite expiration of the extended freeze order, the case involves exceptional public interest and controlling legal questions on AMLA remedies.
• Motion resolution period: Under RA 10167 and A.M. 05-11-04-SC, the CA must co
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 207078)
Background and Nature of the Dispute
- Petition filed by the Republic through the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) under Sec. 10 of R.A. 9160, as amended, seeking ex parte issuance of a freeze order over 179 bank accounts.
- Accounts belonged to Roberto V. Ongpin, his associates (Manalo, Torres), several corporations (Deltaventure, Goldenmedia, Boerstar, Compact, Elkhound), former DBP officers, and numerous banks.
- AMLC alleged probable cause that these accounts contained proceeds or were related to predicate crimes under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).
- Court of Appeals initially granted a 20-day freeze (Dec 6, 2012), extended freeze for six months (Dec 26, 2012 to Jun 26, 2013), and allowed bank inquiry under Sec. 11 of AMLA.
Key Factual Transactions
- Deltaventure Resources, Inc., beneficially owned by Ongpin, sought two DBP credit lines:
• P150 M (April 2009), secured by Philweb and various realty‐company shares; approved within days.
• P510 M (Nov 2009) to buy 50 M Philex shares from DBP; shares registered to Goldenmedia, pledged back to DBP. - DBP sold its remaining 59.339 M Philex shares; block sale with Goldenmedia, Boerstar, Elkhound, Walter Brown to Two Rivers Pacific Holdings at P21 per share, conferring controlling interest in Philex.
- Two Rivers partly owned by First Pacific International, Ltd. (MVP’s group); Ongpin was Philex vice chair.
Allegations of Illicit Conduct
- DBP Chair and President filed Ombudsman complaint alleging:
• Sec. 3(e), (g), (h) of R.A. 3019 (Undue injury, disadvantageous contract, conflict of interest).
• R.A. 8791 and R.A. 7653 violations (failure to ascertain creditworthiness). - Ombudsman finding (Sept 24, 2012): probable cause for behest loans and collusion among Ongpin, Manalo, Torres, and 14 DBP officers.
- AMLC (Nov 14, 2012 Resolution): probable cause that two loans had anomalies—no credit investigation, speculative collaterals, DBP incurred opportunity loss of P415 M if sold at P21 vs. P12.75/share.
- AMLC presumed lost DBP profit realized by Ongpin and associates; inferred commingling by DBP officers via grossly disproportionate transactions vs. SALNs.
Remedies Sought: Freeze Order & Bank Inquiry
- Freeze Order (Sec. 10, R.A. 9160 as amended by R.A. 10167): ex parte petition by AMLC; Court of Appeals to determine probable cause within 24 hours; 20-day immediate effect, extendable by court.
- Bank Inquiry Order (Sec. 11, R.A. 9160 as amended by R.A. 10167): ex parte application; Court of Appeals to act within 24 hours; AMLC may examine deposits, investments, related accounts.
- AMLC authorized to pursue: civil forfeiture (Sec. 12), criminal complaint