G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997
KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father and Natural Guardian, and Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINA E. SALVACION, petitioners, vs. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT, respondents.

FACTS

On February 4, 1989, respondent Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old, to his apartment where he detained and raped her repeatedly over four days. Upon his arrest on February 7, 1989, police recovered, among other items, a dollar account passbook from China Banking Corporation. Bartelli escaped custody on February 24, 1989. Petitioners filed a civil case for damages and obtained a writ of preliminary attachment. On March 1, 1989, a notice of garnishment was served on China Banking Corporation to attach Bartelli’s dollar deposit. The bank refused, invoking Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, which provides that “Foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever.” The Central Bank confirmed this provision was absolute and without exception. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of petitioners, awarding them moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Petitioners filed the instant petition for declaratory relief, seeking to declare Section 113 unconstitutional and to enforce the garnishment.

ISSUE

Whether Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1246 and Republic Act No. 6426 (the Foreign Currency Deposit Act), which grants absolute exemption of foreign currency deposits from attachment, is applicable under the peculiar circumstances of this case where a foreign transient is adjudged liable for civil damages arising from heinous crimes.

RULING

The Supreme Court held the provisions INAPPLICABLE to this case. The Court ruled that applying the absolute exemption would lead to injustice and absurdity, as it would allow a foreign transient like Bartelli to use the law to evade civil liability for heinous crimes, thereby rendering the final judgment of the lower court nugatory. The Court emphasized that laws are interpreted with the presumption that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. It found a conflict of legal policy between protecting foreign currency deposits to encourage foreign investment and doing justice to a national victim of a crime. Given the peculiar circumstances—where the depositor is a foreign transient found guilty of grave crimes and the claimant is a Filipino minor—the Court required the respondents to comply with the writ of execution and release the dollar deposit to satisfy the judgment. The exemption was deemed not intended to shield wrongdoers or frustrate the ends of justice.