REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

EUGENIO
G.R. No. 174629 Februar 14! 2""#

Pe$%$%o&er' REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES re(rese&$e) b

THE *NTI+,ONE- L*UNERING COUNCIL
Res(
Res(o&
o&)e
)e&$
&$s'
s' *USTR
USTRI*
I* ,*RT
,*RTIN
INE/
E/!! C*RP
C*RPIO
IO ,OR
,OR*
*LES!
LES! TIN
TING*
G*!! a&) HON
HON..
*NTO
*NTONI
NIO
O ,. EUGE
EUGENINIO!
O! 0EL*
0EL*SCSCO!
O! R.!
R.! *S PRES
PRESIIIN
ING
G
UG
UGEE OF RTC!RTC! ,*NI
,*NIL*L*!! BR*
BR*NCH
NCH 4!
4! P*NT*
NT*LEON
LEON
*L0*RE/ a&) LILI* CHENG
Po&e&$e' TING*! J .

S$a$e3e&$ o $5e Case'

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 assailing the
orders and resolutions issued by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and the Court of 
 Appeals on two different cases which arose as part of the aftermath of the ruling of 
the Supreme Court in  Agan v. PIATCO
PIATCO nullifying the concession agreement awarded
to the Philippine International Airport Terminal Corporation PIATC!" o#er the $inoy
 A%uino Internatio
International
nal Airport
Airport Internation
International
al Passenger
Passenger Ter
Terminal
minal & $AIA
$AIA &" Pro'ect(
Pro'ect(

Fa$s'

In relation to the series of in#estigations concerning the award of the $AIA &
contra
contracts
cts to PIA
PIATC! undeunderta
rta)e
)en
n by the !mbud
!mbudsma smann and
and the Compl
Complian
iance
ce and
and
In#est
In#estiga
igatio
tion
n Staf
Stafff CIS"
CIS" of petiti
petitione
onerr Anti*M
nti*Mone
oney y +aund
+aunderi
ering
ng Counc
Councilil AM+C"
AM+C",,
Pantaleon
Pantaleon Al#are-
Al#are- Al#are-"
Al#are-" was charged with #iolation
#iolation of RA $o(
$o( &./0( The CIS
conducted an intelligence database search on the financial transactions of certain
indi#iduals in#ol#ed in the award, including Al#are-, which re#ealed that the latter 
maintained eight 1" ban) accounts with si2 6" different ban)s(

3nder the authority granted by the Resolution, the AM+C filed an application
to in%uire into or e2amine the deposits
deposits or in#estments
in#estments of Al#are-, Trinidad,
Trinidad, +iongson
and Cheng
Cheng 4ong
4ong before the RTC of Ma)ati( The RTC RTC granted applica
application
tion being
being
satisfied that there e2isted probable cause to belie#e that the deposits in #arious
ban)
ban) acco
accoun
unts
ts are
are relate
related
d to the offe
offense
nse of #iola
#iolatio
tion
n of Anti*
nti*raf
raftt and
and Corru
Corrupt
pt
Practices Act now the sub'ect of criminal prosecution before the Sandiganbayan( The
CIS proceeded to in%uire and e2amine the deposits, in#estments and related web
accounts of the four(

Meanwhile, the Special Prosecutor of the !ffice of the !mbudsman re%uested

the AM+C to in#estigate the accounts of Al#are-, PIATC!, and se#eral other entities
in#ol#ed in the nullified contract ad#erting to probable cause to belie#e that the ban)
accounts were used in the commission of unlawful acti#ities that were committed in
relation to the criminal cases then pending before the Sandiganbayan( In response,
the AM+C authori-ed
authori-ed the e2ecuti#e
e2ecuti#e director of the AM+C to in%uire into and e2amine
the accounts named in the letter, including one maintained by Al#are- with 7S 7an)
and two other accounts in the name of Cheng 4ong with Metroban)(

8ollowing the AM+C Resolution, the Republic, through the AM+C, filed an
applic
applicati
ation
on befo
before
re the
the Manil
Manila
a RTC
RTC to in%uir
in%uire
e into
into and9o
and9orr e2ami
e2amine
ne thirt
thirteen
een /&"
/&"
accounts and two :" related web of accounts alleged as ha#ing been used to
facilitate corruption
corruption in the $AIA & Pro'ect( Among said accounts were the 7S 7an)
account of Al#are-
Al#are- and the Metroban) accounts
accounts of Cheng 4ong(
4ong( The Manila RTC
issued an !rder granted the Ex Parte Application
 Application

 Al#are-,
 Al#are-, through counsel, filed an 3rgent Motion to Stay ;nforcement
;nforcement of the
said !rder arguing that nothing in R(A( $o( 0/6. authori-ed the AM+C to see) the
authority to in%uire into ban) accounts ex parte( The Manila
Manila RTC
RTC issued
issued an !rder 
staying the enforcement of its ban) in%uiry order and gi#ing the Republic fi#e 5" days
to respond to Al#are-< motion(

The Republic filed an !mnibus Motion for Reconsideration which was granted
by the Manila RTC denying Al#are-<s motion to dismiss and reinstating in full force
and effect the stayed order(

 Acting on Al#are-<s latest motion, the Manila RTC issued an !rder directing
the AM+C to refrain from enforcing the order until the e2piration of the period to
appeal, without any appeal ha#ing been filed( !n the same day, Al#are- filed a $otice
of Appeal( The Republic filed an 3rgent !mnibus Motion for Reconsideration urging
that it be allowed to immediately enforce the ban) in%uiry order against Al#are- and
that Al#are-s notice of appeal be e2punged from the records since appeal from an
order of in%uiry is disallowed under the Anti money +aundering Act AM+A"(

Meanwhile, respondent +ilia Cheng filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition
for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Application for TR! and9or =rit of 
Preliminary In'unction directed against the Republic of the Philippines through the
 AM+C, Manila RTC >udge ;ugenio, >r( and Ma)ati RTC >udge Marella, >r( imputing
gra#e abuse of discretion on the part of the Ma)ati and Manila RTCs in granting
 AM+Cs ex parte applications for a ban) in%uiry order, arguing among others that the
ex parte applications #iolated her constitutional right to due process, that the ban)
in%uiry order under the AM+A can only be granted in connection with #iolations of the
 AM+A and that the AM+A can not apply to ban) accounts opened and transactions
entered into prior to the effecti#ity of the AM+A or to ban) accounts located outside
the Philippines(

The Court of Appeals, acting on +ilia Chengs petition, issued a Temporary

Restraining !rder( !n e#en date, the Manila RTC issued an !rder  resol#ing to hold
in abeyance the resolution of the urgent omnibus motion for reconsideration then
pending before it until the resolution of +ilia Cheng<s petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals(

Issue'

=hether or not the ban) in%uiry orders issued are #alid and enforceable(

Ru%&8'

7ecause of the 7an) Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of ban) deposits remains
a basic state policy in the Philippines( Subse%uent laws, including the AM+A, may
ha#e added e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act, yet the secrecy of ban) deposits still
lies as the general rule( It falls within the -ones of pri#acy recogni-ed by our laws(
The framers of the /01? Constitution li)ewise recogni-ed that ban) accounts are not
co#ered by either the right to information or under the re%uirement of full public
disclosure( 3nless the 7an) Secrecy Act is repealed or amended, the legal order is
obliged to conser#e the absolutely confidential nature of Philippine ban) deposits(

 Any e2ception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically

legislated( Section : of the 7an) Secrecy Act itself prescribes e2ceptions whereby
these ban) accounts may be e2amined by any person, go#ernment official, bureau or 
office@ namely when /" upon written permission of the depositor@ :" in cases of 
impeachment@ &" the e2amination of ban) accounts is upon order of a competent
court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials@ and B" the money
deposited or in#ested is the sub'ect matter of the litigation( Section 1 of R(A( Act $o(
&./0, the Anti*raft and Corrupt Practices Act, has been recogni-ed by this Court as
constituting an additional e2ception to the rule of absolute confidentiality and there
ha#e been other similar recognitions as well(

The AM+A also pro#ides e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act( 3nder Section
//, the AM+C may in%uire into a ban) account upon order of any competent court in
cases of #iolation of the AM+A, it ha#ing been established that there is probable
cause that the deposits or in#estments are related to unlawful acti#ities as defined in
Section &i" of the law, or a money laundering offense under Section B thereof(
8urther, in instances where there is probable cause that the deposits or in#estments
are related to )idnapping for ransom certain #iolations of the Comprehensi#e
angerous rugs Act of :..: hi'ac)ing and other #iolations under R(A( $o( 6:&5,
destructi#e arson and murder, then there is no need for the AM+C to obtain a court
order before it could in%uire into such accounts(
 It cannot be successfully argued the proceedings relating to the ban) in%uiry
order under Section // of the AM+A is a litigation encompassed in one of the
e2ceptions to the 7an) Secrecy Act which is when the money deposited or in#ested
is the sub'ect matter of the litigation( The orientation of the ban) in%uiry order is
simply to ser#e as a pro#isional relief or remedy( As earlier stated, the application for 
such does not entail a full*blown trial(

$e#ertheless, 'ust because the AM+A establishes additional e2ceptions to

the 7an) Secrecy Act it does not mean that the later law has dispensed with the
general principle established in the older law that all deposits of whate#er nature with
ban)s or ban)ing institutions in the Philippines are considered as of an absolutely
confidential nature( Indeed, by force of statute, all ban) deposits are absolutely
confidential, and that nature is unaltered e#en by the legislated e2ceptions referred to
abo#e( There is disfa#or towards construing these e2ceptions in such a manner that
would authori-e unlimited discretion on the part of the go#ernment or of any party
see)ing to enforce those e2ceptions and in%uire into ban) deposits( If there are
doubts in upholding the absolutely confidential nature of ban) deposits against
affirming the authority to in%uire into such accounts, then such doubts must be
resol#ed in fa#or of the former( Such a stance would persist unless Congress passes
a law re#ersing the general state policy of preser#ing the absolutely confidential
nature of Philippine ban) accounts(

=hile petitioner would premise that the in%uiry into +ilia Chengs accounts
finds root in Section // of the AM+A, it cannot be denied that the authority to in%uire
under Section // is only e2ceptional in character, contrary as it is to the general rule
preser#ing the secrecy of ban) deposits( ;#en though she may not ha#e been the
sub'ect of the in%uiry orders, her ban) accounts ne#ertheless were, and she thus has
the standing to #indicate the right to secrecy that attaches to said accounts and their 
owners( This statutory right to pri#acy will not pre#ent the courts from authori-ing the
in%uiry anyway upon the fulfillment of the re%uirements set forth under Section // of 
the AM+A or Section : of the 7an) Secrecy Act@ at the same time, the owner of the
accounts ha#e the right to challenge whether the re%uirements were indeed complied
with(

Petition is dismissed(