G.R. No. 135882 ; June 27, 2001
LOURDES T. MARQUEZ, in her capacity as Branch Manager, UNION BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, in his capacity as OMBUDSMAN, ANGEL C. MAYOR-ALGO, JR., MARY ANN CORPUZ-MANALAC AND JOSE T. DE JESUS, JR., in their capacity as Chairman and Members of the Panel, respectively, respondents.

FACTS

In May 1998, petitioner Lourdes T. Marquez, Branch Manager of Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, received an Order from Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto dated April 29, 1998, directing her to produce bank documents for an in camera inspection relative to specific account numbers involved in a pending Ombudsman case, Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) v. Amado Lagdameo, et al. The Ombudsman cited his powers under R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), specifically Sections 15(8) and (9), claiming it modified the law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits ( R.A. No. 1405 ). The basis was a trail of managers checks purchased by George Trivinio, with some deposited at petitioner’s branch. After an initial meeting where petitioner’s counsel advised compliance, petitioner later wrote to the Ombudsman stating the accounts could not be readily identified as the checks were payable to cash or bearer and the accounts might be dormant. The Ombudsman rejected this explanation and, on June 16, 1998, issued another order stating petitioner’s refusal was unjustified and constituted disobedience punishable as indirect contempt under R.A. No. 6770 . On July 10, 1998, petitioner and Union Bank filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition, and injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, seeking a declaration of her rights due to the conflict between R.A. No. 6770 and R.A. No. 1405 , and praying for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The RTC denied the TRO on July 14, 1998. Meanwhile, on September 7, 1998, the Ombudsman issued an order to cite petitioner for indirect contempt, which she moved to reconsider. The Ombudsman denied her motion for reconsideration on October 14, 1998. Petitioner then filed the present petition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman has the power to directly cite petitioner for indirect contempt and compel the production of bank documents for in camera inspection, in light of the provisions of R.A. No. 1405 (The Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act) and R.A. No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989).

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman does not have the power to directly cite a person for indirect contempt. While Section 15(9) of R.A. No. 6770 grants the Ombudsman the power to punish for contempt, this power is not direct but must be exercised in accordance with the Rules of Court. Under the Rules, the power to punish for contempt is inherently judicial. Therefore, if the Ombudsman desires to cite a person for indirect contempt, he must first file a petition with the proper Regional Trial Court. The Court also clarified that the Ombudsman’s power to “examine and have access to bank accounts and records” under Section 15(8) of R.A. No. 6770 is not absolute and is subject to the existing laws and regulations on bank deposits, particularly R.A. No. 1405 . The Ombudsman’s order for an in camera inspection must comply with the requirements of R.A. No. 1405 , which allows such inspection only upon order of a competent court in cases involving bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation. The Court ordered the Ombudsman to cease and desist from requiring petitioner to comply with the order dated October 14, 1998, and similar orders.