G.R. No. 128996 ; February 15, 2002
Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner, petitioners, vs. Court of Appeals, Department of Justice, Aziz Rajkotwala, William Ferguson, Joven Reyes, and Vic Lim, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Carmen Intengan, Rosario Neri, and Rita Brawner were clients of Citibank. An internal investigation revealed that Citibank officers Dante Santos and Marilou Genuino allegedly diverted client funds, including those of the petitioners, from their Citibank accounts to corporations owned by Santos and Genuino, under the pretense of securing higher-yield investments elsewhere. In a subsequent complaint for violation of the Corporation Code filed by Citibank against its officers, private respondent and Citibank Vice-President Vic Lim executed an affidavit detailing the scheme. Attached to this affidavit were bank documents, including records of the petitioners’ foreign currency deposits, showing the transfer of their funds. Petitioners, claiming these attachments violated the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under Republic Act No. 6426 , filed a criminal complaint for violation of R.A. No. 1405 (the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law) against the Citibank officers and managers, including respondents. The Department of Justice (DOJ) later ordered the withdrawal of the informations, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the DOJ and the Court of Appeals correctly sustained the withdrawal of the criminal informations for violation of R.A. No. 1405 against the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the rulings of the DOJ and the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centered on the interpretation of R.A. No. 6426 , which governs foreign currency deposits. The Court held that the law imposes absolute confidentiality on such deposits, with only one exception: a written permission from the depositor. The disclosure made by the Citibank officers—attaching the petitioners’ foreign currency deposit records to a public affidavit filed in a different case—did not fall under this sole exception. The respondents’ arguments that the disclosure was necessary for Citibank’s internal investigation and subsequent case against its own officers were rejected. The Court ruled that the bank’ internal purposes did not justify a public disclosure that breached the statutory absolute secrecy. The fact that the disclosure was made in the course of another judicial proceeding did not create a new exception to the law. Consequently, the DOJ committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the withdrawal of the informations, as the facts alleged in the complaints sufficiently constituted a violation of the law. The case was remanded for the appropriate proceedings.