Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

G.R. No. 94723 August 21, 1997 KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru !"!ri#o N. S$%&$#ion, 'r., ($th!

r $n" N$tur$% Gu$r"i$n, $n" S)ous!s E*ERICO N. SALVACION, 'R., $n" EVELINA E. SALVACION &s. CEN+RAL ,ANK O +-E .-ILI..INES, C-INA ,ANKING COR.ORA+ION $n" GREG ,AR+ELLI / NOR+-CO++ +h! $#ts Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four counts of rape and serious illegal detention against Karen Salvacion. Police recovered from him several dollar checks and a dollar account in the China Banking Corp. He was, however, a le to escape from prison. !n a civil case filed against him, the trial court awarded Salvacion moral, e"emplar# and attorne#$s fees amounting to almost P%,&&&,&&&.&&. Salvacion tried to e"ecute the 'udgment on the dollar deposit of Bartelli with the China Banking Corp. ut the latter refused arguing that Section %% of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& e"empts foreign currenc# deposits from attachment, garnishment, or an# other order or process of an# court, legislative od#, government agenc# or an# administrative od# whatsoever. Salvacion therefore filed this action for declarator# relief in the Supreme Court. +h! Issu! Should Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and Section , of -epu lic Act (o. *./*, as amended # P0 %/.*, otherwise known as the 1oreign Currenc# 0eposit Act e made applica le to a foreign transient2 +h! Ru%ing0 No 3he provisions of Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and P0 (o. %/.*, insofar as it amends Section , of -epu lic Act (o. *./*, are here # held to e !(APP4!CAB45 to this case ecause of its peculiar circumstances. -espondents are here # re6uired to compl# with the writ of e"ecution issued in the civil case and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount as would satisf# the 'udgment. Supreme Court ruled that the 6uestioned law makes futile the favora le 'udgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents full# deserve. !t then proceeded to show that the economic asis for the enactment of -A (o. *./* is not an#more present7 and even if it still e"ists, the 6uestioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for eing unreasona le and oppressive. 3he intention of the law ma# e good when enacted. 3he law failed to anticipate the ini6uitous effects producing outright in'ustice and ine6ualit# such as the case efore us. 3he SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the 8ffshore Banking S#stem and the 1oreign Currenc# 0eposit S#stem were designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and, su se6uentl#, to give the latter protection. However, the foreign currenc# deposit made # a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged # P0 (os. %&+. and %&+9 and given incentives and protection # said laws ecause such depositor sta#s onl# for a few da#s in the countr# and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the ank onl# for a short time. Considering that Bartelli is 'ust a tourist or a transient, he is not entitled to the protection of Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& and P0 (o. %/.* against attachment, garnishment or other court processes. 1urther, the SC said: ;!n fine, the application of the law depends on the e"tent of its 'ustice. 5ventuall#, if we rule that the 6uestioned Section %%+ of Central Bank Circular (o. )*& which e"empts from attachment, garnishment, or an# other order or process of an# court, legislative od#, government agenc# or an# administrative od# whatsoever, is applica le to a foreign transient, in'ustice would result especiall# to a citi<en aggrieved # a foreign guest like accused Greg Bartelli. 3his would negate Article %& of the (ew Civil Code which provides that ;in case of dou t in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking od# intended right and 'ustice to prevail.=

'OSE.- VIC+OR G. E'ERCI+O &. SAN*IGAN,A1AN 239 SCRA 193 423356

>s. 0ela Pa<, receiver of the ?r an Bank, furnished the 8ffice of the 8m udsman certified copies of manager checks detailed in the su poena duces tecum. 3he Sandigan a#an granted the same. However, 5'ercito claims that the su poenas issued # the Sandigan a#an are invalid and ma# not e enforced ecause the information found therein, given their e"tremel# detailed character and could onl# have een o tained # the Special Prosecution Panel through an illegaldisclosure # the ank officials. 5'ercito thus contended that, following the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, the su poenas must e 6uashed. >oreover, the e"tremel#@detailed information o tained # the 8m udsman from the ankofficials concerned during a previous investigation of the charges against him, suchin6uir# into his ank accounts would itself e illegal. ISS7E0 Ahether or not su poena duces tecumBad testificandum ma# e issued to order the production of statement of ank accounts even efore a case for plunder is filed in court. -EL*0 3he Supreme Court held that plunder is analogous to ri er#, and therefore, thee"ception to -.A. %.&9 must also appl# to cases of plunder. 3he court also reiterated the ruling in >ar6ue< v. 0esierto that efore an in camera inspection ma# e allowed there must e a pending case efore a court of competent 'urisdiction. 1urther, the account must e clearl# identified, the inspection limited to the su 'ect matter of pending case efore the court of competent 'urisdiction. As no plunder case against then President 5strada had #et een filed efore a court of competent 'urisdiction at the time the 8m udsman conducted an investigation, he concludes that the information a out his ank accounts were ac6uired illegall#, hence, it ma# not e lawfull# used to facilitate a su se6uent in6uir# into the same ank accounts. 3hus, his attempt to make the e"clusionar# rule applica le to the instant case fails. 3he high Court, however, re'ected the arguments of the petitioner 5'ercito that the ank accounts which where demanded from certain anks even efore the case was filed efore the proper court is inadmissi le in evidence eing fruits of poisonous tree. 3his is ecause the 8m udsman issued the su poenas earing on the ank accounts of5'ercito a out four months efore >ar6ue< was promulgated on Cune /D, /&&%. Ahile 'udicial interpretations of statutes, such as that made in >ar6ue< with respect to -.A. (o. *DD& or the 8m udsman Act of %),), are deemed part of the statute as of the date it was originall# passed, the rule is not a solute. 3hus, the Court referred to the teaching of Colum ia Pictures !nc., v. Court of Appeals, that: !t is conse6uentl# clear that a 'udicial interpretation ecomes a part of the law as of the date that law was originall# passed, su 'ect onl# to the 6ualification that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, and more so when there is a reversal thereof, the new doctrine should e applied prospectivel# and should not appl# to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good faith.

G.-. (o. %D))9/. 0ecem er ., /&&).

8E+RO.OLI+AN ,ANK AN* 8ALA1AN INS7RANCE CO., INC.

+R7S+

CO8.AN1

vs.

,A

INANCE

COR.ORA+ION

$n"

AC+S0 4am erto Bitanga o tained from respondent BA 1inance Corporation a loan, to secure which, hemortgaged his car to respondent BA 1inance. Bitanga had the mortgaged car insured # respondent>ala#an !nsurance. 3he car was stolen. 8n Bitanga$s claim, >ala#an !nsurance issued a check pa#a le to the order of EB.A. 1inance Corporation and 4am erto BitangaE, drawn against China. 3he check was crossed with the notation E1or 0eposit Pa#ees$ Account 8nl#.E Aithout the indorsement or authorit# of his co@pa#ee BA 1inance, Bitanga deposited the check to his account with the Asian ank, now mergedwith herein petitioner >etro ank. Bitanga su se6uentl# withdrew the entire proceeds of the check. !n the meantime, Bitanga$s loan ecame past due, ut despite demands, he failed to settle it. BA 1inance eventuall# learned of the loss of the car and of >ala#an !nsurance$s issuance of a crossed check pa#a leto it and Bitanga, and of Bitanga$s depositing it in his account at Asian ank and withdrawing the entire proceeds thereof. BA 1inance thereupon demanded the pa#ment of the value of the check fromAsian ank ut to no avail, prompting it to file a complaint efore the -3C for sum of mone# anddamages against Asian ank and Bitanga, alleging that, inter alia, it is entitled to the entire proceeds of the check. 3he trial court, holding that Asian ank was negligent in allowing Bitanga to deposit the checkto his account and to withdraw the proceeds thereof, without his co@pa#ee BA 1inance having eitherindorsed it or authori<ed him to indorse it in its ehalf, found Asian ank and Bitanga 'ointl# andseverall# lia le to BA 1inance following Section .% of the (egotia le !nstruments 4aw 3he appellate court, affirming the trial court$s decision, held that BA 1inance has a cause of action against FitG even if the su 'ect check had not een delivered to BA 1inance # the issuer itself. Hence, the present Petitionfor -eview on Certiorari filed # >etro ank to which Asian ank was, as earlier stated, merged, faultingthe appellate court. ISS7E A8( the petitioner is lia le for the full value of the check2 -EL*0 Hes. Affirming the decision of the CA, the SC held that Section .% of the (egotia le !nstruments4aw provides: Ahere an instrument is pa#a le to the order of two or more pa#ees or indorsees who arenot partners, all must indorse unless the one indorsing has authorit# to indorse for the others. Bitangaalone endorsed the crossed check, and petitioner allowed the deposit and release of the proceeds thereof, despite the a sence of authorit# of Bitanga$s co@pa#ee BA 1inance to endorse it on its ehalf.3he pa#ment of an instrument over a missing indorsement is the e6uivalent of pa#ment on a forgedindorsement or an unauthori<ed indorsement in itself in the case of 'oint pa#ees. Clearl#, petitioner,through its emplo#ee, was negligent when it allowed the deposit of the crossed check, despite the lone endorsement of Bitanga, ostensi l# ignoring the fact that the check did not, it ears repeating, carr# the indorsement of BA 1inance

FACTS:

CORNISTA v NLRC In 1983, the Philippine Veterans Bank was placed under receivership and subsequently ordered

liquidated by the Central Bank s !onetary Board" Because o# the ter$ination o# e$ploy$ent o# all the e$ployees o# the Bank, the Philippine Veterans Bank %$ployees &nion #iled a case a'ainst the Bank" (he Court upheld the le'ality o# the ter$ination o# all the e$ployees, includin' the $e$bers o# the &nion" In 199), Con'ress enacted *"+" ,1-9 authori.in' the Central Bank to reopen the Bank" (he !onetary Board created a *ehabilitation Co$$ittee who was 'iven the power to hire new e$ployees" Petitioners prayer: (o be reinstated on the 'round that the enact$ent o# *"+" ,1-9 nulli#ied the !onetary Board *esolutions placin' the Bank under liquidation Banks prayer: (o dis$iss the petition because ter$ination was /usti#ied Labor Arbiter: Petition dis$issed #or lack o# $erit NLRC: 0ecision o# 1abor +rbiter reversed and set aside2 petition #or reinstate$ent 'ranted sub/ect to the operational require$ents o# the Bank (he &nion, throu'h its duly authori.ed o##icers, and the Bank entered into a Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent #or the a$icable settle$ent o# pendin' cases and clai$s" + substantial $a/ority o# the $e$bers o# the &nion rati#ied the co$pro$ise a'ree$ent" Petitioners prayer: (o hold the co$pro$ise a'ree$ent not bindin' on e$ployees who did not rati#y it and on those who were alle'edly deceived by the &nion into acceptin' the #irst pay$ent under the sa$e a'ree$ent Labor Arbiter3 Co$pro$ise a'ree$ent valid and considered as in #ull satis#action o# the 41*C s prior decision NLRC3 (hose union $e$bers who received the #irst pay$ent were bound by the sa$e Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent2 #or those who si'ni#ied their opposition and those who did not acknowled'e receipt o# the $oney, let the case be re$anded to the +rbitration Branch #or #urther proceedin's" CA: 5ith respect to the reinstate$ent o# the union $e$bers, 41*C 'ravely abused its discretion as the #or$er were law#ully separated" *einstate$ent is proper only in cases o# ille'al dis$issal" +s re'ards the Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent, petitioners are dee$ed bound by it under the principle o# res judicata and6or estoppel" (hey voluntarily received the #irst pay$ent, e7ecutin' the correspondin' 8uitclai$, 5aiver and *elease in the process" ISSUES: 1" 594 the passa'e o# *"+" 4o" ,1-9, which reopened and rehabilitated the Bank, 'ave petitioners the ri'ht to be reinstated2 and )" 594 co$pro$ise a'ree$ent was valid

RULING: 1" 49" (he enact$ent o# *"+" 4o" ,1-9 did not nulli#y the !onetary Board *esolutions placin' the Bank under liquidation and caused the ter$ination o# e$ploy$ent o# the petitioners" (he #orcible closure o# the Bank by operation o# law per$anently severed the e$ployer:e$ployee relationship between it and its e$ployees when it ceased operations" )" 49" A labor unions function is to represent its members. It can file an action or enter into compromise a reements on be!alf of its members. ;ere, $a/ority o# the Bank s e$ployees authori.ed the &nion to enter into a co$pro$ise a'ree$ent with the Bank on their behalves" (he Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent was rati#ied by )8) &nion $e$bers representin' a $a/ority o# its entire <)9 $e$bership" (he rati#ication o# the Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent by the $a/ority o# the &nion $e$bers necessarily binds the $inority" !oreover, 3= o# the herein 3, petitioners already received pay$ent under the sa$e Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent" (hey are there#ore estopped #ro$ questionin' the validity o# said contract later on" Interestin'ly, while the petitioners try to i$pu'n the Co$pro$ise +'ree$ent that they the$selves entered into, they have not $ade any o##er or e##ort to return the $oney they received as #irst pay$ent under said a'ree$ent"

Potrebbero piacerti anche