China Bank v. CA, Gotianuy Digest

China Bank v. CA, Gotianuy Digest
G.R. No. 140687 December 18, 2006
Ponente: Phil. SC Justice Chico-Nazario

Facts: 

1. The case stems from a complaint for a recovery of sums of money and annulment of sales ofreal property and shares of stocks filed by Jose Gotianuy against his son-in-law George Dee and his daughter Mary Margaret Dee.

2. Gotianuy accused his daughter of stealing his properties, US Dollar deposits with Citybank amounting to P35M and $864,000. Margaret Dee obtained these amounts through check issued by Citybank naming her as a co-payee of Gotianuy. She allegedly deposited the checks with petitioner bank. Gotianuy died during the pendency of the case and was substituted by his daughter Elizabeth.

3. Subsequently, employees of China Bank were sent subpoena to testify re:bank  deposits of Margaret Dee but petitioner invoked RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). The lower court held that the disclosure of the name only of a depositor does not constitute a violation of RA 1405. The CA affirms the lower court's decision.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can validly invoke the bank secrecy law to prevent the disclosure 

HELD: No.

Jose Gotianuy is a co-payee of the checks deposited in China Bank hence, he is deemed also a depositor. A depositor is one who pays money into the bank in the usual course of business to be placed to his credit and subject to his check of the beneficiary of the funds held by the bank as trustee. As such, no  written consent from Margaret Dee is needed in order to inquire into the said deposits. Moreover, there was no issue as to the real source of the funds since even Marygaret Dee declared that Gotianuy was the source of the Citibank US Dollar checks. As the owner of the funds unlawfully taken and now deposited with the petitioner bank, Gotianuy has the right to inquire into the said deposit. Clearly, it was not the intention of the lawmakers to perpetrate injustice when it enacted the Bank Secrecy Law or RA 1405.