DOJ Opinion No. 005, s. 1982

DOJ OPINION NO. 005 , s. 1982 January 8, 1982 The Acting Commissioner Bureau of Customs Manila Sir : This has reference to your request for legal opinion on (a) whether or not "the law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits [Republic Act No. 1405] includes within its scope papers and documents pertaining to commercial transactions conducted through banking institutions, such as the issuance of letters of credit involved in importations subject to duties and taxes", and (b) if the answer is in the negative, whether "the police authority granted by the Tariff and Customs code [may] be exercised over such commercial papers, excluding only those pertaining to bank deposits, particularly in the course of investigations conducted as part of the administrative proceedings provided for under the [said] Code". Subject to the extended discussion set forth hereunder, we answer the first query in the negative and the second query in the affirmative. I You state that Section 3503 of the Tariff and Customs Code empowers "the Commissioner, Collectors, and their deputies, and other customs employees especially deputized by the Collector . . . to administer oaths and take testimony in connection with any matter within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs and in connection therewith may require the production of relevant papers, documents, and books and records in accordance with law." You further state that in the exercise of the abovesaid powers, your Office has encountered "oftentimes, the refusal of a bank official or an importer to cooperate and appear in administrative investigations" conducted by your Office and "has [thus] rendered such investigations futile" "since banking or commercial papers could constitute the only major source of evidence on [import] transactions". We understand that such refusal on the part of the bank official or importer is grounded on the protection extended by RA 1405, thus giving rise to the instant query. Therefore, we take it that when you speak of "papers and documents pertaining to commercial transactions conducted through banking institutions" in your first query, you refer to those involved in import transactions subject to the Tariff and Customs Code; and that when you speak of "police authority granted by the Tariff and Customs Code" in the second query, you mean the authority to subpoena the aforesaid papers and documents for investigation purposes. The papers and documents you refer to are not within the scope of the protection granted by RA 1405, Section 2 of which reads: Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in case of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of litigation." (Emphasis supplied.) The foregoing provision is clear and unequivocal in limiting the immunity granted thereunder to two matters, namely, bank deposits and investments in government bonds . In view of the settled rule inclusio unius est exclusio alterius , and considering that the commercial (import) transactions in question are obviously not "investments in government bonds", the only question left is whether or not the said transactions would fall under the word "deposits". LexLib Undoubtedly, subject transactions may not be deemed bank deposits. In the banking sense, the term "deposit" refers to the placing of money, or things in the possession of the bank, withdrawable on the depositor's order or demand (Gimbel Bros. vs. White 10 NYS 2d 666; City of Lincoln vs. First Nat'l Bank, 19 NW 2 d 156; City of Canby vs. Bank of Canby, 257 NW 520), such as deposit accounts in the form of savings, current and time deposits with the bank. Documents and papers issued by banking institutions in connection with import transactions, such as letters of credit or trust receipts, are entirely different matters. No deposit of money or things are involved therein, except perhaps what is known as a margin deposit, which we understand, however, is not a depot for safekeeping but is actually an advance payment of a security arrangement. Furthermore, the legislative motivation behind RA 1405 is "to encourage people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding" (Tatalon Barrio Council vs. Chief Accountant, 7 SCRA 170). It is easy to see that this objective is in no way related to commercial instruments, like letter of credit, trust receipts, or instruments of indebtedness, such as bank drafts or promissory notes. It is quite evident from its language that the law did not intend to extend to all records and documents pertaining to banking transactions the immunity which it grants. II As regards the follow-up query, since the commercial papers in question are not covered by the law on secrecy of bank deposits, it necessarily follows that their production may be required by your Office, if necessary in the conduct of investigations relative to the enforcement of the Tariff and Customs Code. LexLib Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice