GR 140687; (December, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140687 December 18, 2006
China Banking Corporation, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Jose “Joseph” Gotianuy as substituted by Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo, respondents.
FACTS
Jose Gotianuy filed a complaint against his daughter, Mary Margaret Dee, and son-in-law, George Dee, for recovery of money and annulment of sales. He alleged that Mary Margaret stole his US dollar funds from Citibank, depositing them into an account at China Banking Corporation (China Bank). Upon Jose Gotianuy’s death, he was substituted by his other daughter, Elizabeth Gotianuy Lo. She presented six Citibank checks, payable to “GOTIANUY: JOSE AND/OR DEE: MARY MARGARET,” which were allegedly deposited at China Bank.
The trial court issued a subpoena to China Bank employees to testify regarding the checks. China Bank moved for reconsideration, invoking the absolute confidentiality of foreign currency deposits under Republic Act No. 6426 , as amended. The trial court modified its order, directing the bank representatives to appear and testify solely for the purpose of disclosing in whose name the foreign currency fund represented by the checks was deposited, and nothing more. China Bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court’s order, compelling China Bank to disclose only the name of the depositor of the specific foreign currency funds, violates the confidentiality provisions of the Foreign Currency Deposit Act.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is that the absolute confidentiality under Section 8 of R.A. 6426 pertains to the foreign currency deposits themselves. The law’s text does not expressly extend this protection to the mere identity of the depositor. The Court rejected the bank’s interpretation that the secrecy rule covers even the depositor’s name, as this would read into the law an intention not expressed by the legislature.
Furthermore, the ruling is a limited, pro hac vice decision based on the distinctive circumstances. The checks were payable to both the alleged owner (Jose Gotianuy) and the alleged wrongdoer (Mary Margaret Dee), creating a direct link between the funds in question and the bank account sought to be identified. The plaintiff, as the alleged owner of the funds, is entitled to a hearing on their whereabouts. To prohibit any inquiry would perpetuate injustice and contravene the rudiments of fair play. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind the law was not to shield fraud or obstruct the administration of justice. Thus, the limited disclosure ordered—merely the name on the account where the specifically identified checks were deposited—was upheld as a necessary exception under the unique facts of the case to avoid a circuitous denial of justice.