People v. BDO Unibank, Inc.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241115. January 7, 2019.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. BDO UNIBANK, INC., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 7, 2019which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241115 — People of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. BDO Unibank, Inc., Respondent.

The Court resolves to GRANT petitioner's Motion for Extension of Time seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period on August 23, 2018 within which to file its Petition for Review on Certiorari.

After a judicious review of petitioner's allegations and in accordance with Rule 45 and other related provisions of the Rules of Court, the Court further resolves to DENY the present Petition for Review on Certiorari for: (1) non-payment of P1,000.00 for Sheriff's Trust Fund per A.M. 17-12-09-SC; and (2) failure to show any reversible error on the part of the Court of Appeals (CA) in rendering the assailed Decision 1 and Resolution dated November 28, 2017 and July 31, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 139412.

Petitioner comes to Us raising essentially the same procedural and substantial issues it brought up before the CA. Petitioner insists that the Manifestation/Motion filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO) was fatally infirm for not having stated a date and time for hearing and that the State was not given an opportunity to file a comment thereon as the Special Panel of Prosecutors was not furnished a copy of the same. Moreover, petitioner maintains that the documents sought to be subpoenaed were exempted from the Bank Secrecy Law. HCaDIS

After a meticulous scrutiny of the instant case, the Court finds no cogent reason to sustain petitioner's claim. While admittedly the Court has consistently held that a motion that fails to comply with Sections 4, 2 5 3 and 6 4 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court is a mere scrap of paper which should not be acted upon, the rule is not absolute. There are motions that can be acted upon by the court ex parte if these will not cause prejudice to the other party. The Manifestation/Motion of BDO is such kind of a motion. Hence, although a notice of hearing in a motion is a mandatory requirement, BDO's Manifestation/Motion could be acted upon by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ex parte; and therefore, excused from the above-mentioned mandatory requirements. Thus, the CA committed no reversible error when it held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of notice of hearing. The CA aptly explained:

As there was notice to the public prosecutor, who was also under the direct supervision of the Department of Justice under which the Special Panel of Prosecutors are a part of, it cannot be argued that the petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to be heard as well as to have time to study the motion and meaningfully oppose or controvert the grounds upon which it is based. x x x It is thus reasonably expected that appropriate coordination will be made by the assigned public prosecutor with the Special Panel of Prosecutors x x x.

Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that petitioner was completely deprived of due process given that it was able to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated May 15, 2014.

On the merits, the Court likewise concurs with the ruling of the CA that the documents subject of the subpoena are shielded by the Bank Secrecy Law or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1405. As correctly pointed out by BDO, in the case of BSB Group, Inc. v. Sally Go, 5 the Court pronounced that the issue of what constitutes the subject matter in litigation in relation to Section 2 of R.A. No. 1405 has already been laid to rest in Union Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals6 in which the Court noted that the inquiry into bank deposits allowable under R.A. No. 1405 must be premised on the fact that the money deposited in the account is itself the subject of the action. 7 In this case, it is clear from the Information that the subject matter of the action is the millions of pesos alleged to have been swindled by Rasuman, et al., and not the money in the bank accounts which are sought to be subpoenaed. Stated otherwise, the bank accounts subject of the subpoena duces tecum were not the subject matter of a litigation and as such, are protected by the Bank Secrecy Law. Besides, should the said bank accounts be admitted into evidence, such will only prove the existence, nature and the amount kept therein and not the alleged crime of Rasuman, et al.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed Decision and Resolution dated November 28, 2017 and July 31, 2018, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 139412.

The Hon. Lucia P. Puruganan, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Manila City, Branch 30 is DROPPED as party-respondent pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. AHCETa

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J., on official leave; Del Castillo, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2632 dated December 28, 2018.

 

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Danton Q. Bueser.

2. SECTION 4. Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.

   Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.

3. SECTION 5. Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

4. SECTION 6. Proof of service necessary. — No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.

5. G.R. No. 168644, 626 Phil. 501-518, (2010).

6. 378 Phil. 1117-1187 (1999).

7.Id. at p. 1187.