8/18/2019 Ombudman vs Ibay

1/3

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. IBAY September 3, 2001

QUISUMBING, J.Mica Maurinne M. Adao

SUMMARY: Ombudsman conducted an investigation on thealleged “scam” on the PEA-Amari Coastal Bay DevelopmentCorporation. nitial result o! the investigation revealed thatthe alleged anomaly "as committed through the issuance o! chec#s "hich "ere subse$uently deposited in several%nancial institutions. t ordered &ar$ue'( a branch managero! )nion Ban# to produce several documents !or inspection. *he inspection "ould be done “in camera  "herein the ban#records "ould be e+amined "ithout bringing the documentsoutside the ban# premises. &ar$ue' !ailed to comply "iththe Order and another Order "as issued directing her( in theevent o! her !ailure to comply( to sho" cause "hy she

should not be cited !or contempt and "hy she should not becharged !or obstruction. &ar$ue' %led an action !ordeclaratory relie! "ith the ,*C to as# !or guidelines becauseunder ,.A. /0 12a" on 3ecrecy o! Ban# Deposits4( she hadthe legal obligation not to divulge any in!ormation relative toall deposits o! "hatever nature "ith ban#s in the Philippines.Ombudsman %led a motion to dismiss !or lac# o! 5urisdiction.,*C denied the motion to dismiss and ruled it has 5urisdiction. 3C ruled that ,*C has 5urisdiction and that the“in camera” inspection cannot be legally done "ithout apending case against )nion Ban#.

DOCTRINE: n Mar!ue" #$. %e$ierto( it "as ruled thatbe!ore an in camera inspection o! ban# accounts may beallo"ed( there must be a pending case be!ore a court o!competent 5urisdiction. 6urther( the account must be clearlyidenti%ed( and the inspection limited to the sub5ect mattero! the pending case be!ore the court o! competent 5urisdiction. *he ban# personnel and the account holdermust be noti%ed to be present during the inspection( andsuch inspection may cover only the account identi%ed in thepending case. An investigation by the Ombudsman on the

so-called “scam” cannot be considered a pending case thus(any order !or the opening o! the ban# account !or inspectionis clearly premature and legally un5usti%ed.

3ometime in 778( Ombudsman conducted an investigationon the alleged “scam” on the Public Estates Authority-AmariCoastal Bay Development Corporation. nitial result o! theinvestigation revealed that the alleged anomaly "ascommitted through the issuance o! chec#s "hich "eresubse$uently deposited in several %nancial institutions.

On April 97( 778( Ombudsman issued an Order directing2ourdes &ar$ue'( branch manager o! )nion Ban# o! thePhilippines branch at :ulia ;argas Avenue( Pasig City( toproduce several ban# documents !or inspection relative to

Account 9>/-0( 9/-/9/>8( 90-=/=>-= and90-=/=8-( reportedly maintained in the said branch. *hedocuments re!erred to include ban# account application!orms( signature cards( transactions history( ban#statements( ban# ledgers( debit and credit memos( depositand "ithdra"al slips( application !or purchase o! manager?schec#s( used manager?s chec#s and chec# micro%lms. *heinspection "ould be done “in camera  "herein the ban#records "ould be e+amined "ithout bringing the documentsoutside the ban# premises. ts purpose "as to identi!y thespeci%c ban# records prior to the issuance o! the re$uiredin!ormation not in any manner needed in or relevant to the

investigation

&ar$ue' !ailed to comply "ith such order. 3he e+plainedthat despite diligent e@orts( the ban# could not identi!ythese accounts since the chec#s "ere issued in cash orbearer !orms. Ombudmsna !ound such e+planationunacceptable. &ar$ue' "as reminded that her actsconstitute disobedience or resistance to a la"!ul order and ispunishable as indirect contempt. *he same might alsoconstitute "ill!ul obstruction o! the la"!ul e+ercise o! the

8/18/2019 Ombudman vs Ibay

2/3

8/18/2019 Ombudman vs Ibay

3/3

cover only the account identi%ed in the pending case. n thepresent case( since there is no pending litigation yet be!orea court o! competent authority( but only an investigation bythe Ombudsman on the so-called “scam”( any order !or the

opening o! the ban# account !or inspection is clearlypremature and legally un5usti%ed.

WHEREFORE( the instant petition is D3&33ED.