Title
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 Summary (G.R. No. 233395)

Factual Background

Elizabeth charged Norlina with unauthorized deductions from her BDO savings account (Account No. 0970097875) and failure to post two manager’s checks deposited on October 27, 2008. The account balance allegedly fell from ₱1,071,561.73 in July 2008 to ₱334.47 by October 31, 2008. The two checks—UCPB Check No. 0000005197 (₱2,743,346) and BPI Check No. 0000002688 (₱2,237,341.89)—were presented to Norlina by Ferdinand and Jovelyn, respectively, but not credited to Elizabeth’s account.

Norlina defended that the charges were retaliatory, arising from a separate criminal complaint filed by BDO against Elizabeth, Ruby and others for theft, estafa, and access device violations involving erroneous credits to Ruby’s Visa Electron Fastcard account. Ruby had withdrawn over ₱64 million between November 2007 and September 2008 despite only ₱1.6 million remitted by Elizabeth. Ruby executed three documents before the Philippine Consulate in Dubai—an Undertaking with Authorization, a Special Power of Attorney, and a Deed of Dation in Payment—purporting to grant BDO set-off rights over her assets, including third-party bank accounts in the names of Elizabeth, Ferdinand, and Jovelyn. Pursuant to these instruments, BDO debited Elizabeth’s account and applied proceeds from the two manager’s checks against Ruby’s obligations.

Procedural History

OSI-BSP found a prima facie case for unsafe or unsound banking practices under Section 56.2 of RA 8791 and referred the case to the OGCLS-BSP. Petitioner filed:

  1. A Request to Answer Written Interrogatories addressed to Elizabeth, Ferdinand, and Jovelyn.
  2. A Motion for Production of Documents seeking account statements from UCPB and BPI.

On June 9, 2014, the OGCLS-BSP denied both motions, ruling that (a) the proceedings are summary and not bound by discovery rules; (b) bank deposit secrecy under RA 1405 prohibits examination without the depositor’s consent; and (c) interrogatories to prosecution witnesses are unnecessary since confrontation at hearing suffices. A motion for reconsideration was denied on August 26, 2014. Petitioner filed a certiorari petition before the CA, which, in its October 25, 2016 Decision and August 9, 2017 Resolution, denied relief.

Issue Presented

Whether the OGCLS-BSP committed grave abuse of discretion by denying petitioner’s requests for written interrogatories and production of bank documents in an administrative case.

Nature of Administrative Proceedings and Discovery

The Supreme Court affirmed that administrative investigations before the BSP are summary, confidential, and not subject to technical rules of procedure and evidence (BSP Circular No. 477, Rule 1, Section 3). Discovery procedures under the Rules of Court are not mandatory. Allowing petitioner’s motions would delay resolution and undermine the purpose of a swift administrative inquiry. The CA correctly held that all material facts needed to resolve the case were already in the parties’ pleadings and attachments.

Secrecy of Bank Deposits

Under RA 1405, all bank deposits are absolutely confidential and may only be examined with the depositor’s written consent or by court order in limited circumstances. The accounts petitioner sought belong

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms