G.R. No. L-18360; January 31, 1963
TATALON BARRIO COUNCIL, through its Chairman, RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ERLANDO ESPELETA, et al., petitioners-appellants, vs. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT of the Bank of the Philippine Islands, HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ATTYS. JOSE TUASON, JR., RODOLFO CALUAG, DOMINGO D. SISON, and RAFAEL CALUAG, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners, as complainants in a criminal action for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Article 216 of the Revised Penal Code filed with the Manila City Fiscal, sought to compel the Bank of the Philippine Islands to produce certain bank records. The investigating fiscal issued a subpoena duces tecum directing the bank’s cashier or treasurer to appear and bring the savings and current accounts of respondent J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. and the law offices of Tuason, Caluag and Sison for a specified period.
The bank official refused to comply with the subpoena, invoking the confidentiality provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 (The Bank Secrecy Law). This law prohibits the disclosure of any information concerning bank deposits, except under specific statutory exceptions. Due to this refusal, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel the production of the documents. The lower court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus may be issued to compel a bank official to produce bank deposit records in response to a subpoena duces tecum issued by a city fiscal during a preliminary investigation, notwithstanding the confidentiality mandate of Republic Act No. 1405 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, holding that mandamus was not a proper remedy. The legal logic is anchored on the explicit and restrictive nature of Republic Act No. 1405 . Section 2 of the law declares all bank deposits as “absolutely confidential” and may not be examined, inquired into, or looked into except only: (1) upon written permission of the depositor; (2) in impeachment cases; (3) upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; or (4) where the money deposited is the subject matter of the litigation.
The Court ruled that the case at bar did not fall under any of these exceptions. A preliminary investigation conducted by a city fiscal is not a proceeding before a “competent court” as contemplated by the law. The fiscal’s role is to determine whether a prima facie case exists for filing an information, but this function does not equate to the authority of a court to order the disclosure of confidential bank records. The petitioners’ reliance on Rules 21 and 29 of the Rules of Court on subpoena duces tecum was misplaced, as those rules apply to actions pending in court, not to a preliminary investigation before a fiscal. Since the bank official had a legal duty under RA 1405 to maintain confidentiality and no applicable exception was present, he did not neglect a duty that mandamus could enforce. Therefore, the lower court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction to issue the writ.