ACT NO 3936 Rosmil Realty and Development Corporation ("Rosmil")

c/o Teresita Millan.

 This was used this as one of their basis for a complaint
against Millan and Montemayor which they filed with the
G.R. No. 192413 June 13, 2012
Regional Trial Court praying that defendants return the
parcels of land ang receive the refund for the
Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation, Petitioner,
downpayment.
vs.
Hi-Tri Development Corporation and Luz R.  On January 31, 2003, during the pendency of the
Bakunawa, Respondents. abovementioned case and without the knowledge of
[Hi-Tri and Spouses Bakunawa], x x x RCBC reported
the "₱ 1,019,514.29-credit existing in favor of Rosmil"
to the Bureau of Treasury as among its "unclaimed
FACTS balances" as of January 31, 2003.
 ("Spouses Bakunawa") are registered owners of six (6)  On December 14, 2006, Republic, through the [Office
parcels of land in Marikina. of the Solicitor General (OSG)], filed with the RTC the
action below for Escheat [(Civil Case No. 06-244)].
 Sometime in 1990, a certain Teresita Millan ("Millan"),
through her representative, Jerry Montemayor, offered  On April 30, 2008, [Spouses Bakunawa] settled
to buy said lots for "₱ 6,724,085.71", with the promise amicably their dispute with Rosmil and Millan. Instead
that she will take care of clearing whatever preliminary of only the amount of "₱ 1,019,514.29", [Spouses
obstacles there may[]be to effect a "completion of the Bakunawa] agreed to pay Rosmil and Millan the amount
sale". of "₱ 3,000,000.00", [which is] inclusive [of] the amount
of ["]₱ 1,019,514.29". But during negotiations and
 Millan made a down[]payment of "₱ 1,019,514.29" for
evidently prior to said settlement, [Manuel Bakunawa,
the intended purchase. However, for one reason or
through Hi-Tri] inquired from RCBC-Ermita the
another, Millan was not able to clear said obstacles. As
availability of the ₱ 1,019,514.29 under RCBC
a result, the Spouses Bakunawa rescinded the sale and
Manager’s Check No. ER 034469. [Hi-Tri and Spouses
offered to return to Millan her downpayment of ₱
Bakunawa] were however dismayed when they were
1,019,514.29.
informed that the amount was already subject of the
 However, Millan refused to accept back the ₱
escheat proceedings before the RTC.
1,019,514.29 down[]payment. Consequently, the
Spouses Bakunawa, through their company, the Hi-Tri ISSUE
Development Corporation ("Hi-Tri") took out on October
28, 1991, a Manager’s Check from RCBC-Ermita in the Whether or not the escheat proceeding is proper. NO
amount of ₱ 1,019,514.29, payable to Millan’s company
RULING (d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if any,
and the amount thereof.
We find sufficient grounds to affirm the CA on the exclusion of
the funds allocated for the payment of the Manager’s Check in A copy of the above sworn statement shall be posted in a
the escheat proceedings. Escheat proceedings refer to the conspicuous place in the premises of the bank, building and
judicial process in which the state, by virtue of its sovereignty, loan association, or trust corporation concerned for at least sixty
steps in and claims abandoned, left vacant, or unclaimed days from the date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately
property, without there being an interested person having a before filing the above sworn statement, the bank, building and
legal claim thereto. loan association, and trust corporation shall communicate with
the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his
Act No. 3936, as amended, outlines the proper procedure to be last known place of residence or post office address.
followed by banks and other similar institutions in filing a sworn
statement with the Treasurer concerning dormant accounts: As seen in the afore-quoted provision, the law sets a detailed
system for notifying depositors of unclaimed balances. This
Sec. 2. Immediately after the taking effect of this Act and within notification is meant to inform them that their deposit could be
the month of January of every odd year, all banks, building and escheated if left unclaimed.
loan associations, and trust corporations shall forward to the
Treasurer of the Philippines a statement, under oath, of their Nevertheless, the mere issuance of a manager’s check does
respective managing officers, of all credits and deposits held by not ipso facto work as an automatic transfer of funds to the
them in favor of persons known to be dead, or who have not account of the payee. In case the procurer of the manager’s or
made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten cashier’s check retains custody of the instrument, does not
years or more, arranged in alphabetical order according to the tender it to the intended payee, or fails to make an effective
names of creditors and depositors, and showing: delivery, we find the following provision on undelivered
instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Law applicable
(a) The names and last known place of residence or post (SEC. 16 Delivery; when effectual; when presumed.) :
office addresses of the persons in whose favor such
unclaimed balances stand; Since there was no delivery, presentment of the check to the
bank for payment did not occur. An order to debit the account
(b) The amount and the date of the outstanding of respondents was never made. In fact, petitioner confirms that
unclaimed balance and whether the same is in money the Manager’s Check was never negotiated or presented for
or in security, and if the latter, the nature of the same; payment to its Ermita Branch, and that the allocated fund is still
held by the bank.34 As a result, the assigned fund is deemed to
(c) The date when the person in whose favor the remain part of the account of Hi-Tri, which procured the
unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or the date Manager’s Check.
when he made his last deposit or withdrawal; and
G.R. No. L-16106 December 30, 1961 which defendant wants excluded from the complaint come
within the purview of Act No. 3936, but not the telegraphic
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant, transfer payment which orders are of different category.
vs. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed with regard to the
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL., defendants, latter. But, after a motion to reconsider was filed by defendant,
THE FIRST NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW the court a quo changed its view and held that even said
YORK, defendant-appellee. demand drafts do not come within the purview of said Act and
so amended its decision accordingly. Plaintiff has
appealed.lawphil.net

FACTS Section 1, Act No. 3936, provides:

The Republic of the Philippines filed before the RTC a complaint Section 1. "Unclaimed balances" within the meaning of
for escheat of certain unclaimed bank deposits balances under this Act shall include credits or deposits of money,
the provisions of Act No. 3936 against several banks, among bullion, security or other evidence of indebtedness of
them the First National City Bank of New York. any kind, and interest thereon with banks, as hereinafter
defined, in favor of any person unheard from for a period
It is alleged that pursuant to Section 2 of said Act defendant of ten years or more. Such unclaimed balances, together
banks forwarded to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement with the increase and proceeds thereof, shall be
under oath of their respective managing officials of all the credits deposited with the Insular Treasure to the credit of the
and deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead Government of the Philippine Islands to be as the
or who have not made further deposits or withdrawals during Philippine Legislature may direct.
the period of 10 years or more. Wherefore, it is prayed that said
credits and deposits be escheated to the Republic of the It would appear that the term "unclaimed balances" that are
Philippines by ordering defendant banks to deposit them to its subject to escheat include credits or deposits money, or other
credit with the Treasurer of the Philippines. evidence of indebtedness of any kind with banks, in favor of any
person unheard from for a period of 10 years or more. And as
In its answer the First National City Bank of New York claims correctly stated by the trial court, the term "credit" in its usual
that it has inadvertently included in said report certain items meaning is a sum credited on the books of a company to a
amounting to P18,589.89 which, properly speaking, are not person who appears to be entitled to it. It presupposes a
credits or deposits within the contemplation of Act No. 3936. creditor-debtor relationship, and may be said to imply ability, by
Hence, it prayed that said items be not included in the claim of reason of property or estates, to make a promised payment. It
plaintiff. is the correlative to debt or indebtedness, and that which is due
to any person, a distinguished from that which he owes. The
After hearing the court a quo rendered judgment holding that same is true with the term "deposits" in banks where the
cashier's is or manager's checks and demand drafts as those
relationship created between the depositor and the bank is that But a demand draft is very different from a cashier's or
of creditor and debtor. manager's cheek, contrary to appellant's pretense, for it has
been held that the latter is a primary obligation of the bank which
ISSUE issues it and constitutes its written promise to pay upon
demand. Thus, a cashier's check is not an ordinary draft. The
Whether or not demand draft and telegraphic orders come latter is a bill of exchange payable demand. It is the primary
within the meaning of the term "credits" or "deposits" employed obligation of the bank which issues it and constitutes its written
in the law? NO promise to pay upon demand.

Do they create a creditor-debtor relationship between drawee A demand draft is not therefore of the same category as a
and the payee? cashier's check which should come within the purview of
the law.
RULING
The case, however, is different with regard to telegraphic
To begin with, we may say that a demand draft is a bill of payment order. The purchaser of a telegraphic transfer upon
exchange payable on demand. Considered as a bill of making payment completes the transaction insofar as he is
exchange, a draft is said to be, like the former, an open letter of concerned, though insofar as the remitting bank is concerned
request from, and an order by, one person on another to pay a the contract is executory until the credit is established (Ibid.) We
sum of money therein mentioned to a third person, on demand agree with the following comment the Solicitor General: "This is
or at a future time therein specified. so because the drawer bank was already paid the value of the
telegraphic transfer payment order. In the particular cases
On the other hand, a bill of exchange within the meaning of our under consideration it appears in the books of the defendant
bank that the amounts represented by the telegraphic payment
Negotiable Instruments Law (Act No. 2031) does not operate as
an assignment of funds in the hands of the drawee who is not orders appear in the names of the respective payees. If the
liable on the instrument until he accepts it. In other words, in latter choose to demand payment of their telegraphic transfers
order that a drawee may be liable on the draft and then become at the time the same was (were) received by the defendant
obligated to the payee it is necessary that he first accepts the bank, there could be no question that this bank would have to
same. pay them. Now, the question is, if the payees decide to have
their money remain for sometime in the defendant bank, can the
latter maintain that the ownership of said telegraphic payment
Since it is admitted that the demand drafts herein involved have
orders is now with the drawer bank? The latter was already paid
not been presented either for acceptance or for payment, the
the value of the telegraphic payment orders otherwise it would
inevitable consequence is that the appellee bank never had any
not have transmitted the same to the defendant bank. Hence, it
chance of accepting or rejecting them. Verily, appellee bank
is absurd to say that the drawer banks are still the owners of
never became a debtor of the payee concerned and as such the
said telegraphic payment orders."
aforesaid drafts cannot be considered as credits subject to
escheat within the meaning of the law.
G.R. No. 192302 June 4, 2014 involuntary insolvency proceedings, i.e., Spec. Proc. Case No.
03-026 filed before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 204
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the ANTI- (insolvency case), they were appointed as assignees of the
MONEY LAUNDERING COUNCIL, Petitioner, properties of Spouses Saturnino and Rosario Baladjay (Sps.
vs. Baladjay) (as well as their conduit companies) who were
RAFAEL A. MANALO, GRACE M. OLIVA, and FREIDA Z. impleaded as defendants in the aforementioned civil forfeiture
RIVERA-YAP, Respondents. cases.13

ISSUE

FACTS Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the Manila RTC
committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Joint Order
On July 18, 2003, petitioner Republic of the Philippines dated August 8, 2007 and the Order dated January 10, 2008
(Republic), represented in this case by the Anti-Money which denied respondents’ separate motions for intervention in
Laundering Council (AMLC), filed a complaint for civil forfeiture, the civil forfeiture cases.
entitled "Republic v. R.A.B. Realty, Inc., et al. before the Manila
RTC. At this point, the Court duly notes that during the pendency of
the instant petition, the Manila RTC rendered a Decision on
Subsequently, or on July 21, 2003, it filed a second complaint September 23, 2010 in Civil Case No. 03-107325, and,
for civil forfeiture, entitled "Republic v. Ariola, Jr., et thereafter, a Decision dated February 11, 2011 and Amended
al.,"7 docketed as Civil Case No. 03-107325 (collectively, civil Decision dated May 9, 2011 in Civil Case No. 03-107308, all of
forfeiture cases), also before the same RTC.8 In the said civil which ordered the assets subject of the said cases forfeited in
forfeiture cases, the Republic sought the forfeiture in its favor of favor of the government.23In view thereof, the Republic prayed
certain deposits and government securities maintained in that it be excused from filing the required reply,24 which the
several bank accounts by the defendants therein, which were Court granted in a Resolution25 dated June 3, 2013.1âwphi1
related to the unlawful activity of fraudulently accepting
investments from the public,9 in violation of the Securities RULING
Regulation Code10 as well as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001.11 The petition must be dismissed for having become moot and
academic.
On September 25 and 27, 2006, herein respondents filed
separate Motions for Leave to Intervene and Admit Attached A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it
Answer-in Intervention12 (separate motions for intervention), in ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
the civil forfeiture cases, respectively, alleging, inter alia, that supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a
they have a valid interest in the bank accounts subject thereof. declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use.
In this relation, they asserted that in a separate petition for In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a
petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by
the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction
over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness,26 as a
judgment in a case which presents a moot question can no
longer be enforced.27

In this case, the Manila RTC's rendition of the Decision dated

September 23, 2010 in Civil Case No. 03-107325, as well as the
Decision dated February 11, 2011 and the Amended Decision
dated May 9, 2011 in Civil Case No. 03-107308, by virtue of
which the assets subject of the said cases were all forfeited in
favor of the government, are supervening events which have
effectively rendered the essential issue in this case moot and
academic, that is, whether or not respondents should have been
allowed by the Manila RTC to intervene on the ground that they
have a legal interest in the forfeited assets. As the proceedings
in the civil forfeiture cases from which the issue of intervention
is merely an incident have already been duly concluded, no
substantial relief can be granted to the Republic by resolving the
instant petition.
G.R. No. 216914
By 8 March 2015, the Manila Times published another article
Facts entitled, "CA orders probe of Binay 's assets" reporting that the
Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition under appellate court had issued a Resolution granting the ex-parte
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the constitutionality of Section application of the AMLC to examine the bank accounts of
11 of R.A No. 9160, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, as SPCMB. Forestalled in the CA thus alleging that it had no
amended, specifically the Anti-Money Laundering Council's ordinary, plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to protect its
authority to file with the Court of Appeals (CA) in this case, an rights and interests in the purported ongoing unconstitutional
ex-parte application for inquiry into certain bank deposits and examination of its bank accounts by public respondent Anti-
investments, including related accounts based on probable Money Laundering Council (AMLC), SPCMB undertook direct
cause. resort to this Court via this petition for certiorari and prohibition
on the following grounds that the he Anti-Money Laundering Act
In 2015, a year before the 2016 presidential elections, reports is unconstitutional insofar as it allows the examination of a bank
abounded on the supposed disproportionate wealth of then Vice account without any notice to the affected party: (1) It violates
President Jejomar Binay and the rest of his family, some of the person's right to due process; and (2) It violates the person's
whom were likewise elected public officers. The Office of the right to privacy.
Ombudsman and the Senate conducted investigations and
inquiries thereon.
Issues:
From various news reports announcing the inquiry into then 1. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 violates
Vice President Binay's bank accounts, including accounts of substantial due process.
members of his family, petitioner Subido Pagente Certeza
2. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 violates
Mendoza & Binay Law Firm (SPCMB) was most concerned with
procedural due process.
the article published in the Manila Times on 25 February 2015
entitled "Inspect Binay Bank Accounts" which read, in pertinent 3. Whether Section 11 of R.A No. 9160 is violative
part: of the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in Section
2, Article III of the Constitution.
xxx The Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) asked the
Court of Appeals (CA) to allow the [C]ouncil to peek into the Rulings
bank accounts of the Binays, their corporations, and a law office 1. No. We do not subscribe to SPCMB' s position. Succinctly,
where a family member was once a partner. Section 11 of the AMLA providing for ex-parte application and
inquiry by the AMLC into certain bank deposits and investments
xx xx does not violate substantive due process, there being no
Also the bank accounts of the law office linked to the family, the physical seizure of property involved at that stage.
Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Firm, where the In fact, .Eugenio delineates a bank inquiry order under Section
Vice President's daughter Abigail was a former partner. 11 from a freeze order under Section 10 on both remedies'
effect on the direct objects, i.e. the bank deposits and be filed and does not prevent Estrada from requesting a copy of
investments: the counter-affidavits of his co-respondents during the pre-trial
or even during trial.
On the other hand, a bank inquiry order under Section 11 does
not necessitate any form of physical seizure of property of the Plainly, the AMLC's investigation of money laundering offenses
account holder. What the bank inquiry order authorizes is the and its determination of possible money laundering offenses,
examination of the particular deposits or investments in banking specifically its inquiry into certain bank accounts allowed by
institutions or non-bank financial institutions. The monetary court order, does not transform it into an investigative body
instruments or property deposited with such banks or financial exercising quasi-judicial powers. Hence, Section 11 of the
institutions are not seized in a physical sense, but are examined AMLA, authorizing a bank inquiry court order, cannot be said to
on particular details such as the account holder's record of violate SPCMB's constitutional right to due process.
deposits and transactions. Unlike the assets subject of the
freeze order, the records to be inspected under a bank inquiry 3. No. We now come to a determination of whether Section 11
order cannot be physically seized or hidden by the account is violative of the constitutional right to privacy enshrined in
holder. Said records are in the possession of the bank and Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. SPCMB is adamant that
therefore cannot be destroyed at the instance of the account the CA's denial of its request to be furnished copies of AMLC's
holder alone as that would require the extraordinary cooperation ex-parte application for a bank inquiry order and all subsequent
and devotion of the bank. pleadings, documents and orders filed and issued in relation
thereto, constitutes grave abuse of discretion where the
At the stage in which the petition was filed before us, the inquiry purported blanket authority under Section 11: ( 1) partakes of a
into certain bank deposits and investments by the AMLC still general warrant intended to aid a mere fishing expedition; (2)
does not contemplate any form of physical seizure of the violates the attorney-client privilege; (3) is not preceded by
targeted corporeal property. predicate crime charging SPCMB of a money laundering
offense; and ( 4) is a form of political harassment [of SPCMB' s]
clientele.
2. No. The AMLC functions solely as an investigative body in
the instances mentioned in Rule 5.b.26 Thereafter, the next step We thus subjected Section 11 of the AMLA to heightened
is for the AMLC to file a Complaint with either the DOJ or the scrutiny and found nothing arbitrary in the allowance and
Ombudsman pursuant to Rule 6b. Even in the case of Estrada authorization to AMLC to undertake an inquiry into certain bank
v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the conflict arose at the accounts or deposits. Instead, we found that it provides
preliminary investigation stage by the Ombudsman, we ruled safeguards before a bank inquiry order is issued, ensuring
that the Ombudsman's denial of Senator Estrada's Request to adherence to the general state policy of preserving the
be furnished copies of the counter-affidavits of his co- absolutely confidential nature of Philippine bank accounts:
respondents did not violate Estrada's constitutional right to due 1. The AMLC is required to establish probable
process where the sole issue is the existence of probable cause cause as basis for its ex-parte application for bank
for the purpose of determining whether an information should inquiry order;
 2. The CA, independent of the AMLC's
demonstration of probable cause, itself makes a finding
of probable cause that the deposits or investments are
related to an unlawful activity under Section 3(i) or a
money laundering offense under Section 4 of the AMLA;
3. A bank inquiry court order ex-parte for related
accounts is preceded by a bank inquiry court order ex-
parte for the principal account which court order ex-parte
for related accounts is separately based on probable
cause that such related account is materially linked to
the principal account inquired into; and
4. The authority to inquire into or examine the main
or principal account and the related accounts shall
comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2
and 3 of the Constitution. The foregoing demonstrates
that the inquiry and examination into the bank account
are not undertaken whimsically and solely based on the
investigative discretion of the AMLC. In particular, the
requirement of demonstration by the AMLC, and
determination by the CA, of probable cause emphasizes
the limits of such governmental action. We will revert to
these safeguards under Section 11 as we specifically
discuss the CA' s denial of SPCMB' s letter request for
information concerning the purported issuance of a bank
inquiry order involving its accounts.

All told, we affirm the constitutionality of Section 11 of the AMLA

allowing the ex-parte application by the AMLC for authority to
inquire into, and examine, certain bank deposits and
investments.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Section 11 of Republic

Act No. 9160, as amended, is
declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL.
G.R. No. 128996 February 15, 2002 but Republic Act (RA) No. 6426, known as the “Foreign
Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines,” However, applying Act
CARMEN LL. INTENGAN, ROSARIO LL. NERI, and RITA P. No. 3326, the offense prescribes in eight years, therefore, per
BRAWNER, petitioners, available records, private respondents may no longer be haled
vs. before the courts for violation of Republic Act No. 6426.
COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AZIZ
RAJKOTWALA, WILLIAM FERGUSON, JOVEN REYES, and Thus, under R.A. No. 6426 there is only a single exception to
VIC LIM, respondents. the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is
allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor.
Facts: Incidentally, the acts of private respondents complained of
On September 21, 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation happened before the enactment on September 29, 2001 of R.A.
of section 31 in relation to section 144 of the Corporation Code No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of
against two (2) of its officers, Dante L. Santos and Marilou 2001.
Genuino. Attached to the complaint was an affidavit executed A case for violation of Republic Act No. 6426 should have been
by private respondent Vic Lim, a vice-president of Citibank the proper case brought against private respondents. Private
respondents Lim and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed
As evidence, Lim annexed bank records purporting to establish details of petitioners’ dollar deposits without the latter’s written
the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino. Some of the permission. It does not matter if that such disclosure was
documents pertained to the dollar deposits of petitioners necessary to establish Citibank’s case against Dante L. Santos
Carmen Ll. Intengan, Rosario Ll. Neri, and Rita P. Brawner. and Marilou Genuino. Lim’s act of disclosing details of
petitioners’ bank records regarding their foreign currency
In turn, private respondent Joven Reyes, vice- deposits, with the authority of Reyes, would appear to belong to
president/business manager of the Global Consumer Banking that species of criminal acts punishable by special laws, called
Group of Citibank, admits to having authorized Lim to state the malum prohibitum.
names of the clients involved and to attach the pertinent bank
records, including those of petitioners’

Petitioners aver that respondents violated RA 1405.

Issue:
Whether or not Respondents are liable for violation of Secrecy
of Bank Deposits Act, RA 1405.

Held:
No. The accounts in question are U.S. dollar deposits;
consequently, the applicable law is not Republic Act No. 1405