G.R. No. L-18343 September 30, 1965
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, in his capacity as President of the Philippine National Bank, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. EMILIO A. GANCAYCO and FLORENTINO FLOR, Special Prosecutors of the Dept. of Justice, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Defendants, as special prosecutors of the Department of Justice, required the Philippine National Bank to produce at a hearing the records of the bank deposits of Ernesto T. Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was under investigation for unexplained wealth. The plaintiff bank declined, invoking Republic Act No. 1405 (The Bank Secrecy Law), which declares bank deposits as absolutely confidential and prohibits their examination except under specific instances, with a penal provision for violations. The defendants, in turn, cited Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ( Republic Act No. 3019 ), which states that bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in cases of unexplained wealth “notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary,” and threatened the bank president with prosecution for contempt if he did not comply. Plaintiffs filed an action for declaratory judgment. The trial court sustained the defendants’ power to compel disclosure. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the Anti-Graft Law is a general law that did not impliedly repeal the Bank Secrecy Law and that disclosure would negate the policy of encouraging bank deposits.

ISSUE

Whether a bank can be compelled to disclose the records of accounts of a depositor under investigation for unexplained wealth, notwithstanding the confidentiality provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 .

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that Section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law ( Republic Act No. 3019 ) is repugnant to Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Law ( Republic Act No. 1405 ). While the latter declares deposits as absolutely confidential with enumerated exceptions, the former mandates that bank deposits “shall be taken into consideration… notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.” The inconsistency reveals a legislative intent to amend the Bank Secrecy Law by providing an additional exception for cases of unexplained wealth. The Court reasoned that cases of unexplained wealth are similar to the existing exceptions for bribery or dereliction of duty, as both involve public officials and the policy that a public office is a public trust, open to public scrutiny. Therefore, the defendants had the authority to compel the disclosure of the bank records in the investigation.