THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 233395, January 17, 2018
NORLINA G. SIBAYAN, Petitioner, v. ELIZABETH O. ALDA, THROUGH HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RUBY O. ALDA, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO JR., J.:
1. Undertaking with Authorization11 dated October 21, 2008 promising to pay BDO the total amount of money erroneously credited to her Fastcard account, including all charges, and authorizing BDO to setoff and apply as payment whatever monies or properties to her credit or account on the books of BDO or any other entity;Included in the afore-stated List of Properties purportedly ceded by Ruby to BDO are the following bank accounts:
2. Special Power of Attorney12 dated October 22, 2008 authorizing BDO to setoff and apply any money or other property on the books of BDO and/or other entities, banks, and financial institutions under her mime or account for the payment of her obligation; and
3. Deed of Dation in Payment13 dated October 22, 2008 acknowledging her debt to BDO in the amount of Php62,670,681.60 and conveying to BDO all of her interests, rights and title in the properties described under the List of Properties14 attached in the said Deed.
Pursuant to the foregoing documents executed by Ruby, BDO debited Elizabeth's savings account and the proceeds thereof were applied to Ruby's outstanding obligation to BDO. Thereafter, Ferdinand and Jovelyn, who are relatives of Elizabeth and Ruby, went to BDO San Fernando, La Union branch and presented to Norlina the above-mentioned UCPB and BPI manager's checks, the proceeds of which were also purportedly applied as payment by Ruby to BDO.
Bank/Account Number Account Name BDO Account No. 0970097875 Elizabeth O. Alda UCPB Account No. 2351047157 Ferdinand Oriente BPI Account No. 85890237923 Jovelyn Oriente
Motion for Production of Bank DocumentsNorlina's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied by the OGCLS-BSP in its August 26, 2014 Order.23
x x x x
The respondent also alleged that the examination is exempted from the rule on secrecy of bank deposit because the money deposited in the subject bank accounts is the subject matter of litigation. This Office rules otherwise. The present action is an administrative proceeding aimed at determining respondent's liability, if any, for violation of banking laws. A deposit account may be examined or looked into if it is the subject matter of a pending litigation. The phrase "subject matter of the action" pertains to physical facts, things, real or personal, money, lands, chattels, and the like by which the suit is prosecuted. It does not refer to the delict or wrong committed by the defendant.
Hence, the Motion for Production of Bank Documents filed by the respondent is DENIED.
Request to Answer Written Interrogatories
With respect to respondent's Request to Answer Written Interrogatories addressed to Mr. Ferdinand Oriente, Ms. Jovelyn Oriente, and Ms. Elizabeth Aida, the same is DENIED due to the fact that the aforementioned persons are all witnesses for the prosecution. Respondent will be afforded the right to confront these witnesses during the presentation of the prosecution's evidence. Moreover, this Office cannot compel Elizabeth Aida and Jovelyn Oriente to answer the written interrogatories since they are out of the country as manifested by the prosecution.
SO ORDERED.22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari is DENIED. The Orders of Public Respondent dated June 9, 2014 and August 26, 2014 in Administrative Case No. 2012-047 are hereby AFFIRMED.The CA found that the OGCLS-BSP did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Norlina's motion for the production of bank documents and requests to answer written interrogatories. It highlighted the fact that the proceedings before the OGCLS-BSP is summary in nature and to grant Norlina's motions would merely delay the resolution of the case. The CA ruled that Norlina's persistence to utilize modes of discovery will be futile since the information she supposedly seeks to elicit are sufficiently contained in the pleadings and attachments submitted by the parties to aid the OGCLS-BSP in resolving the case before it.25
SO ORDERED.24
Succinctly put, the pivotal issue to be resolved is whether or not grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the OGCLS-BSP in denying Norlina's resort to modes of discovery.I.
THERE EXISTS NO SUBSTANTIAL GROUNDS FOR THE DENIAL OF PETITIONER SIBAYAN'S REQUESTS TO ANSWER WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES.
A. REQUESTS. TO ANSWER WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES MAY BE SERVED ON ANY PERSON, INCLUDING WITNESSES FOR THE PROSECUTION, SUCH AS RESPONDENT ELIZABETH, FERDINAND AND JOVELYN.
B. PETITIONER SIBAYAN'S REQUESTS FOR WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES ARE RELEVANT AND MATERIAL TO THE CASE A QUO.II.
PETITIONER SIBAYAN IS ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCTION OF BANK DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1, RULE 27 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
Section 3. Nature of Proceedings. - The proceedings under these Rules shall be summary in nature and shall be conducted without necessarily adhering to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial trials. Proceedings under these Rules shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure to third parties, except as may be provided under existing laws.The rationale and purpose of the summary nature of administrative proceedings is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases without regard to technical rules.32 As such, in proceedings before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, like the OGCLS-BSP, decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers or other documentary evidence only. They are not bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence.33 To require otherwise would negate the summary nature of the proceedings which could defeat its very purpose.
Further to grant the written interrogatories would merely delay the resolution of the issue brought before [the OGCLS-BSP]. The fraud purportedly executed by [Elizabeth], along with her daughter, her attorney-in-fact, assuming as true, is plain and clear from the records of the case, specifically the Undertaking and Authorization allegedly executed by Ruby admitting the erroneous withdrawal of various amounts from her peso FAST CARD account, to wit:Additionally, the denial of the motion for production of bank documents pertaining to 1) UCPB Account No. 2351047157 and 2) BPI Account No. 8589023792335 is justified as the bank accounts sought to be examined are privileged. Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as The Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposit, provides:
x x x x
In Our minds, the defense of fraud[,] is sufficiently contained in the pleadings and attachments of the parties as to aid the Public Respondent in resolving the case before it.
We note that at the time of resolution of [Norlina's] motions, Jovelyn Oriente, one of the persons requested to answer the written interrogatories, was already out of the country. While her deposition may nevertheless be taken outside of the country, the same will definitely delay the resolution of an otherwise summary case.34
Section 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 cases 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 the litigation.Norlina contends, however, that Ruby is the legal and beneficial owner of the foregoing accounts and that the latter gave her permission to look into the said accounts as stated in the Undertaking with Authorization,36 Special Power of Attorney,37 and Deed of Dation in Payment38 executed by her in BDO's favor.
"The essence of due process is to be heard." In administrative proceedings, due process entails "a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied."As established by the facts, Norlina was afforded the opportunity to be heard and to explain her side before the OGCLS-BSP. She was allowed to submit her answer and all documents in support of her defense. In fact, her defense of fraud committed by Elizabeth and Ruby is sufficiently contained in the pleadings and attachments submitted by the parties to aid the OGCLS-BSP in resolving the case before it.
Section 7. Hearing. - After the submission by the parties of their position papers, the Hearing Panel or Hearing Officer shall determine whether or not there is a need for a hearing for the purpose of cross examination of the affiant(s).All told, the denial of Norlina's motions to resort to modes of discovery did not, and will definitely not, equate to a denial of her right to due process. It must be stressed that Norlina's fear of being deprived of such right and to put up a proper defense is more imagined than real. Norlina was properly notified of the charges against her and she was given a reasonable opportunity to answer the accusations against her. As correctly ruled by the lower tribunals, Norlina's attempt to resort to modes of discovery is frivolous and would merely cause unnecessary delay in the speedy disposition of the case.
If the Hearing Panel or Hearing Officer finds no necessity for conducting a hearing, he shall issue an Order to that effect.
In cases where the Hearing Panel or Hearing Officer deems it necessary to allow the parties to conduct cross-examination, the case shall be set for hearing. The affidavits of the parties and their witnesses shall take the place of their direct testimony.
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.; rollo, pp. 52-63.
2 Id. at 49-50.
3 Issued by Hearing Officer Atty. Leymar K. Cañete; id. at 99-104.
4 Id. at 53.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 7-8.
11 Id. at 182-186.
12 Id. at 189-191.
13 Id. at 196-200.
14 Id. at 199-200.
15 As stated in the CA Decision, id. at 54.
16 Section 56. Conducting Business in an Unsafe or Unsound Manner. - In determining whether a particular act or omission, which is not otherwise prohibited by any law, rule or regulation affecting banks, quasi-banks or trust entities, may be deemed as conducting business in an unsafe or unsound manner for purposes of this Section, the Monetary Board shall consider any of the following circumstances:
x x x x
56.2. The act or omission has resulted or may result in material loss or damage or abnormal risk to the institution's depositors, creditors, investors, stockholders or to the Bangko Sentral or to the public in general.
17Rollo, pp. 105-152.
18 Id. at 153-161.
19 Id. at 205-214.
20 Id. at 215-216.
21 Id. at 99-101.
22 Id. at 100-101.
23 Id. at 102-104.
24 Id. at 62.
25 Id. at 57-58.
26 Id. at 16-17.
27 Particularly Rules 23, 25, and 27 thereof providing for the rules on Depositions Pending Action, Interrogatories to Parties, and Production or Inspection of Documents or Things.
28Rollo, p. 26.
29 Id. at 24.
30] Geronimo v. Spouses Calderon, G.R. No. 201781, December 10, 2014; Tacloban II Neighborhood Association, Inc. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 168561, September 26, 2008; and Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar; A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012.
31 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 477, series of 2005, otherwise known as the "Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Rules of Procedure on Administrative Cases Involving Directors and Officers of Banks, Quasi-Banks and Trust Entities."
32Oriental Shipmanagement Co., Inc. v. Bastol, G.R. No. 186289, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 352.
33Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, G.R. No. 135808, October 6, 2008.
34Rollo, pp. 57-59.
35 Id. at 157.
36 Id. at 182-186.
37 Id. at 189-191.
38 Id. at 196-200.
39 Id. at 199-200.
40 Id. at 39.
41Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012, 669 SCRA 24.
42 G.R. No. 191636, January 16, 2017.
43Barcelona v. Lim, G.R. No. 189171, June 3, 2014, 724 SCRA 433.
44 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 477, series of 2005, otherwise known as the "Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) Rules of Procedure on Administrative Cases Involving Directors and Officers of Banks, Quasi-Banks and Trust Entities."