25. RICARDO BANGAYAN v.

RCBC
G.R. No. 149193|4 April 2011| Sereno
Banking

DOCTRINE: Where no details of a depositor’s bank accounts are disclosed, there is

no violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.

FACTS:

 Bangayan had a savings account and a current account w/ RCBC.

a. Both accounts had an automatic transfer condition wherein checks issued by the depositor may
be funded by any of the 2 accounts.

 Bangayan signed a Comprehensive Surety Agreement w/ RCBC in favor of 9 corporations.

a. Under which, funds in Bangayan’s accounts would be used as security to guarantee any existing and
future loan obligations/ advances, and all expenses these corporations may incur w/ RCBC.

 Transactions of RCBC in relation to the Surety Agreement:

a. A letter of credit was issued in favor of LBZ Commercial and another in
favor of Peaks Mktg. for the importation of PVC resin from Korea.
b. 3rd LC in favor of Final Sales Enterprise.
c. 4th LC for the importation of materials by Lotec Mktg. from Korea.

 After the arrival of the shipments of the first 3 corporations from Korea, BOC demanded from RCBC
remittance of import duties worth PhP13.2M.

 RCBC called Bangayan and informed him of the BOC’s demand for payment of import duties. Bangayan
assured that he was doing everything to solve the problem.

 RCBC put on hold the funds in Bangayan’s accounts – it had such authority under the Surety Agreement.
 RCBC: that as the collecting agent, it had to earmark sufficient funds in the account of Bangayan to
satisfy the tax obligations should they fail to pay.

 This shipment by Lotec Mktg. became the subject of an investigation conducted by the BOC.

 Both parties agreed that the BOC likewise conduct an investigation covering the importation of the
other corporations.

 Philip Saria, an Account Officer of RCBC’s Binondo Branch, signed and executed a Statement (Affidavit)
before the BOC, on the bank’s LCs issued in favor of the 3 corporations.

 In a complaint for damages filed by Bangayan against RCBC, he cited this incident as the basis for the
allegation that RCBC had disclosed to a third party (the BOC) information concerning the identity,
nature, transaction and deposits including details of transaction related to and pertaining to his
deposits with the said bank, in violation of the Bank Secrecy Act (RA 1405).
a. Bangayan filed a complaint for damages for the allaged unjustified dishonor of 7 checks and for the
wrongful disclosure of info regarding his account contrary to the Bank Secrecy Act.

 TC: No evidence was introduced by Bangayan to substantiate his claim that RCBC gave any classified
information.
  Bangayan argues that there was a wrongful disclosure by RCBC and Saria of confidential information
through the Affidavit he submitted to the BOC regarding his bank accounts, in violation of the Bank
Secrecy Act.

ISSUE: W/N RCBC violated the Bank Secrecy Act

HELD: NO. RCBC did not violate the Bank Secrecy Act.

No evidence was introduced by Bangayan to substantiate his claim that RCBC gave any classified
information in violation of RA 1405.

Bangayan failed to identify which confidential information RCBC divulged before the BOC that would
make them liable under the said law. See Section 2 of the Bank Secrecy Act.

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.

Bangayan claims that Saria divulged confidential information through the Affidavit he submitted to the
BOC.

However, nothing in Saria’s Affidavit before the BOC showed that details of Bangayan’s bank accounts
with RCBC was disclosed.

Saria merely discussed his functions as an account officer in RCBC an identified Bangayan as the one who
had guaranteed the the payment or obligations of the importers under the Surety Agreement.

(DAMAGES)
According to Bangayan, the responses of RCBC’s officers in relation to the BOC’s
actions led to unsavory news reports that ridiculed his good character and
reputation.

The humiliation and embarrassment that Bangayan suffered in the business community was not brought
about by the alleged violation of the Bank Secrecy Act.

It was due to the smuggling charges filed by the BOC which found their way in the headlines of
newspapers.