l\epublic of tbe !

lbtlipptnes
~upreme <!Court
) ..
SUPREME: COURT OF

01
mJC _TON ... ~ m
THE: Pi11Ll!)PINE.S

j'jnguio <ltitp

FIRST DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 186717

represented by the ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL,
Petitioner,

- versus -

JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, OWEN

VINCENT D. BOLANTE, MA.
CAROL D. BOLANTE, ALEJO
LAMERA, CARMEN LAMERA,
EDNA CONSTANTINO, ARIEL C.
PANGANIBAN, KATHERINE G.
BOMBEO, SAMUEL S. BOMBEO,
MOLUGAN FOUNDATION,
SAMUEL G. BOMBEO, JR., and
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(Formerly Livelihood Corporation),
Respondents.
:x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -:x

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190357

represented by the ANTI-MONEY
LAUNDERING COUNCIL,
Petitioner,

- versus -

HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAY AS,

Presiding Judge of Branch 59,
Regional Trial Court in Makati City,
JOCELYN I. BOLANTE, ARIEL C.
PANGANIBAN, DONNIE RAY G.
PANGANIBAN, EARL WALTER G.
PANGANIBAN, DARRYL G.
PANGANIBAN, GAVINA G.
PANGANIBAN, JAYPEE G.

;r
Decision 2 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

PANGANIBAN, SAMUEL S.
BOMBEO, KA THERINE G.
BOMBEO, SAMUEL G. BOMBEO,
JR., NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(FORMERLY LIVELIHOOD
CORPORATION), MOLUGAN
FOUNDATION, ASSEMBLY OF
GRACIOUS SAMARITANS
FOUNDATION, INC., ONE
ACCORD CHRISTIAN
COMMUNITY ENDEAVOR FOR
SALVATION & SUCCESS
THROUGH POVERTY Present:
ALLEVIATION, INC., SOCIETY'S
MULTI-PURPOSE FOUNDATION, SERENO, CJ, Chairperson,
INC., ALLIANCE FOR THE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
CONSERVATION OF DEL CASTILLO,
ENVIRONMENT OF PERLAS-BERNABE, and
PANGASINAN, INC., AND STA. CAGUIOA, JJ.
LUCIA EDUCATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BU LA CAN, Promulgated:

2017 ~
INC. Respondents. APR 1 7
x------------------------------------ y------ ~ x
DECISION

SERENO, C.J:

G .R. No. 1867 l 7 is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court, with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction. The petition seeks to
nullify the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution 1 in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00024. The CA Resolution denied petitioner's application to extend the
freeze order issued on 4 Fehruary 2009 2 over the bank deposits and
investments of respondents.

G.R. No. 190357 is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules
of Court challenging the Re~;o!ut!on and the Order issued by the Regiorml
1 4

Trial Comi of Makati, Branch 59 (RTC), in AMLC Case No. 07-001. The

1
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 58-6g. The Resolt11ion dated 27 February 2009 issued by the CA First
Division was penned by As~ociate Justice Ses!nando i::. Villon, with Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam concurring.
7
Id. at472-483.
Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 42-49. The R<:'Sl:.i11ii1H1 riakd ~July 2009 was penned by Presiding Judge
3

Winlove M. Dumayas.
4
Id. at 50; dated 13 November 2009.

~
Decision 3 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

RTC Resolution denied petitioner's application for an order allowing an

inquiry into the bank deposits and investments of respondents. The RTC
Order denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

FACTS

In April 2005, the Philippine National Bank (PNB) submitted to the

Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) a series of suspicious transaction
reports involving the accounts of Livelihood Corporation (LIVECOR),
Molugan Foundation (Molugan), and Assembly of Gracious Samaritans, Inc.
5
(AGS). According to the reports, LIVECOR transferred to Molugan a total
6
amount of'Pl 72.6 million in a span of 15 months from 2004 to 2005. On 30
April 2004, LIVECOR transferred ?40 million to AGS, which received
7
another P38 million from Molugan on the same day. Curiously, AGS
returned the P38 million to Molugan also on the same day. 8

The transactions were reported '"suspicious" because they had no

underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; nor
were they commensurate to the business or financial capacity of Molugan
and AGS, which were both lowly capitalized at P50,000 each. 9 In the case of
Molugan, Samuel S. Bombeo, who holds the position of president, secretary
and treasurer, is the lone signatory to the account. 10 In the case of AGS,
Samuel S. Bombeo shares this responsibility with Ariel Panganiban. 11

On 7 March 2006, the Senate furnished the AMLC a copy of its

12
Committee Report No. 54 prepared by the Committee on Agriculture and
Food and the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations. 13

Committee Report No. 54 14 narrated that former Undersecretary of

Agriculture Jocelyn I. Bolante (Bolante) requested the Department of
Budget and Management to release to the Department of Agriculture the
amount of ?728 million for the purchase of farm inputs under the
Ginintuang Masaganang Ani Program. This amount was used to purchase
liquid fertilizers from Freshan Philippines, Inc., which were then distributed

5
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 97.
6
Id.
7
Id. at 98.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 97.
io Id.
II Id.
12
Entitled "TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY ON THE ALLEGED MISMANAGEMENT AND USE OF
THE FERTILIZER FUND OF TilE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE'S GJNJNTUANG
MASAGANANG AN! PROGRAM TO THE DETRIMENT OF FILIPINO FARMERS WITH THE END IN
VIEW OF CHARTING EFFECTIVE POLICIES AND PROGRAM FOR THE AGRICULTURE
SECTOR."
11
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 98.
14

~
Id. at 104-147.
Decision 4 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

to local government units and congressional districts beginning January

2004. Based on the Audit Report prepared by the Commission on Audit
(COA), 15 the use of the funds was characterized by massive irregularities,
overpricing, violations of the procurement law and wanton wastage of scarce
government resources.

Committee Report No. 54 also stated that at the time that he served as
Undersecretary of Agriculture, Bolante was also appointed by President
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as acting Chairman of LIVECOR.

The AMLC issued Resolution No. 75 16 finding probable cause to

believe that the accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan and AGS - the subjects of
the suspicious transaction reports submitted by PNB - were related to what
became known as the "fertilizer fund scam." The pertinent portion of
Resolution No. 75 provides:

Under the foregoing circumstances, there is probable cause to

believe that the accounts of the foundations and its officers are related to
the fertilizer fund scam. The release of the amount of P728 million for the
purchase of farm inputs to the Department of Agriculture was made by
Undersecretary Bolante. Undersecretary Bolante was the Acting Chairman
of LIVECOR. LIVECOR transferred huge amounts of money to Molugan
and AGS, while the latter foundations transferred money to each other.
Mr. [Samuel S.] Bombeo was the President, Secretary, and Treasurer of
Molugan. He, therefore, played a key role in these transactions. On the
other hand, Mr. [Ariel] Panganiban was the signatory to the account or
AGS. Without his participation, these transactions could not have been
possible.

The acts involved in the "fertilizer scam" may constitute violation

of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, xx x as well as violation or
Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder). 17

Thus, the AMLC authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of
an order allowing an inquiry into the six accounts 18 of LIVECOR, Molugan,
AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel Panganiban. The AMLC also required
all covered institutions to submit reports of covered transactions and/or
suspicious transactions of these entities and individuals, including all the
related web of accounts.

15
Id. at 760-791; entitled Report on the Audit of the -P728 million GMA Farm Input Fund.
16
Id. at 97-102~ dated 18 September 2006.
17
Id. at 100.
18
Id. at I0 I. The accounts are as follows:
~·
Covered Institution
LBP ~--- ----~Ei~r~~~~~ne Account Number
0672102014
PNB Molugan 2738301148
----------
PNB ___t'0olugan 2738102331
PNB AGS 2738301164
PNB
--·-----------.
Samuel S. Bomheo
---~----------
2737006738
BPI --- -- ---··· ---
Ariel _Panganiban 601614338
Decision 5 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

The petition was filed ex parte before the RTC and docketed as
AMLC SP Case No. 06-003. On 17 November 2006, the trial court found
probable cause and issued the Order prayed for. 19 It allowed the AMLC to
inquire into and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related
web of accounts.

Meanwhile, based on the investigation of the Compliance and

Investigation Group of the AMLC Secretariat, a total of 70 bank accounts or
investments were found to be part of the related web of accounts involved in
the fertilizer fund scam. 20

21
Accordingly, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 90 finding probable
cause to believe that these 70 accounts were related to the fertilizer fund
22
scam. It said that the scam may constitute violations of Section 3( e) of
Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and
R.A. 7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder). The
AMLC therefore authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of an
order allowing an inquiry into these 70 accounts. 23

19
Id. at 103.
20
Id. at 151-156.
21
Id at 151-159; dated 26 October 2007.
22
Section 3. Corrupt practices r~lpuhlic officers. -- In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and
are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xx xx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his ofiicial administrative or judicial
functions through manifest paiiiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision
shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant or
licenses or permits or other concessions.
23
Id at 156-159. The accounts arc as fol lows·
Covered Institution Account Name Account Number
AIG Philam Savings Bank, Inc. Ariel C. Panganiban 5179-8819-4757-9006
AIG Philam Savings Bank, Inc. Katherine G. Bombeo 5179-8819-1260-4003
Banco de Oro Samuel S. Bombeo 10160445094
Banco de Oro Samuel S. Bombeo 12160008687
Banco de Oro Ariel C. Panganiban 10160465761
Citibank Katherine Bombeo 8243051259
East West Bank Molugan 04-02-04043-2
East West Bank Molugan 4302005295
East West Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 04-02-01842-9
East West Bank AGS 04-02-04042-4
East West Bank AGS 36-02-00572-1
East West Bank One Accord Christian 36-02-00574-6
Community Endeavor for
I Salvation and Success
throu~Poverty Alleviation
East West Bank Society's Multi-Purpose 36-02-00226-7
Foundation, Inc.
East West Bank Alliance for the 1502053661
Conservation of the
Lnvironment of Pangasinan,
Inc.
------·-- --- - -
East West Bank Sta. Lucia Educational 1502053562
Association of Bulacan, Inc.
Equitable PCI Bank --~uel Gomez Bombeo, Jr. 1291-16354-4

~
Decision 6 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Cont.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Ace-Alliance for the 0016-500155-3
Conservation of the
Environment of Pangasinan,
Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Sta. Lucia Educational 0016-500154-6
Association of Bulacan, Inc.
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. Ariel C. Panganiban 3-00364 790-1
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 24 7-812382-8
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 24 7-525602-9
PNB LIVECOR 273-850001-9
Phil. Savings Bank Ariel C. Panganiban 084-12 1-00 I 80-8
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or I 1-59-00430 I
Donnie Ray G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or I 1-59-004325
Donnie Ray G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-011458
Donnie Ray G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or Earl I 1-59-004305
Walter G. Panganiban --
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or Earl I 1-59-004324
Walter G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or Earl 11-59-011457
Walter G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or I 1-59-004332
Darryl G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or I 1-59-004342
Darryl G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-011464
Darryl G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-004335
Gavina G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-011466
Gavina G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-011474
Gavina G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-04338
~ypee G. Panganiban
Planters Development Bank Ariel C. Panganiban or 11-59-011465
Jaypee G. Panganiban
Phil. Business Bank Sps. Samuel & Katherine PN0576-03
Bombeo
Phil. Business Bank Eduardo F. Suerez &/or 0 I 0-00-000438-9
Ariel C. Panganiban ITF;
MKS Finance Corp.
Union Bank Samuel S. Bornbeo 00894582704-2
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. 2315613
Pru Life Insurance Corp. of UK Samuel S. Bornbeo Policy No. CTBFO 13882
Pru Life Insurance Corp. of UK Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. CTBPO 13882
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. 8710170009
Standard Insurance Co., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. COC-13643688
BPI/MS Insurance Corp. Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. F0005978
Performance Foreign Exchange Corp. ___ SarnueL§: Bombeo, Jr. 2649
Prudential Bank Jocdyn I. Bolante 00000-0351 I 0-8
Prudential Bank ______ _J_l~ce_lr1_1J:Bolante 00000-038816-9
Prudential Bank - ----
Jocelyn I. Bolante 00000-044834-4 -
Prudential
--
Bank
--------- ~---~si~elyn I. Bolante 00000-044915-3
Prudential Bank ------
Jocelvn f. Bolante 00000-046575-8

=t:
~--·--~--··

Prudential Bank .lncelyn I. Bolante 00055-000023-1

-- !----·---------·--·-- -
Prudential Bank Jocelyn l. IJolantc 01055-000093-0
Prudential Bank
Prudential Bank __ ____ Jocelyn I. Bolante
---------
J~cclyn L Bolante
01055-000877-4
04055-000032-3
Prudential Bank
Prudential Bank 1 Jocelvn L Bolante
--- -----i~c~l~I~ -1. Bolant~
05055-000167-0
06055-000057-5
~-----------

~
Decision 7 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

24
On 14 February 2008, this Court promulgated Republic v. Eugenio.
25
We ruled that when the legislature crafted Section 11 of R.A. 9160 (Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001 ), as amended, it did not intend to authorize
ex parte proceedings for the issuance of a bank inquiry order by the CA.
Thus, a bank inquiry order cannot be issued unless notice is given to the
account holders. 26 That notice would allow them the opportunity to contest
the issuance of the order.

27
In view of this development, the AMLC issued Resolution No. 40. It
authorized the filing of a petition for the issuance of a freeze order against
the 70 accounts found to be related to the fertilizer fund scam.

Hence, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Petition 28 docketed as CA-G.R.

AMLC No. 00014 before the CA, seeking the issuance of a freeze order
against the 70 accounts.

The CA issued a freeze order effective for 20 days. 29 The freeze order
required the covered institutions of the 70 accounts to desist from and not
allow any transaction involving the identified monetary instruments. It also
asked the covered institutions to submit a detailed written return to the CA
within 24 hours from receipt of the freeze order.

Cont.
Prudential Bank Jocelyn I. Bolante 06055-000138-5
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001163007351
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001166006794
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 02001I1600000001166006808
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001166009033
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 02001I1600000001167001579
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001167000203
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 02001I1600000001167001978
-
Union Bank Jocelyn I. Bolante 009550000582
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. Jocelyn I. Bolante 1249800445
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. Jocelyn I. Bolante 249046868
Standard Chartered Bank Jocelyn I. Bolante BPY 280851 I 00002150

24
569 Phil. 98 (2008).
25
Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. - Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act
No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the
AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or
non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it
has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful
activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof; except that
no cou1i order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)( I), (2) and
( 12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine
any deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the
examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of
examination of the BSP.
26
Republic v. Eugenio, supra.
27
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 160-164; dated 2 i May 2008.
28
Id. at 74-96; filed on 30 June 2008.
2
'> Id. at 165-184. The Resolution dated l Jilly 2008 issued by the CA First Division was penned by
Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos, with Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate

r
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a Member of this Court) concurring.
Decision 8 G.R. Nos. 1867 I 7 & l 90357

30
The CA conducted a summary hearing of the application, after
which the parties were ordered to submit their memoranda, manifestations
and comments/oppositions. 31 The freeze order was later extended for a
2
period of 30 days until 19 August 2008.:i

Finding that there existed probable cause that the funds transferred to
and juggled by LIVECOR, Molugan, and AGS formed pati of the P728
million fertilizer fund, the CA extended the effectivity of the freeze order for
another four months, or until 20 December 2008. 3:i The extension covered
only 31 accounts, 34 which showed an existing balance based on the returns
of the covered institutions.

0
' Id. at 184, 185; conducted on 8 July 2008.
11
Id. at 186-187.
12
Id. at 185-188; Resolution dated 16 July 2008.
'' Id. at 268-296; Resolution dated 19 August 2008.
4
' Id at 273-283. The remaining accounts that show an existing balance are as follows:

Covered Institution Account Name Account Number

Banco de Oro Samuel S. Bombeo 12160008687
,__ _____ Banco de Oro Ariel C. Panganiban 10160465761
Banco de Oro Ariel C. Panganiban or 0160444063
Gavina Panganiban
Citibank Katherine Bombeo 8243051259
East West Bank Molugan 04-02-04043-2
East West Bank Molugan 4302005295
East West Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 04-02-01842-9
East West Bank Alliance for the 1502053661
Conservation of the
Environment of Pangasinan.
Inc.
East West Bank Sta. Lucia Educational 1502053562
Association of Bulacan, Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Ace-Alliance for the 0016-500155-3
Conservation of the
Environment or Pangasinan,
Inc.
Maybank Phils., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo I 016-003434-3
.__ _ _M_a~y_b_a_nk Phils., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo I 71 6-000 I I 8-9
Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co. Ariel C. Panganiban 3-00364 790-1
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 247-812382-8
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 24 7-525602-9
PNB LIVECOR 273-850001-9
PNB LIVECOR 273-502826-2
Union Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 00894582704-2
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ariel C. Panganiban I Policy No. 2315613
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co.
BPI/MS Insurance Corp.
-+- --~£11_!1_!:!.(.':I S_._ Bombeo
Ariel C. Panganiban
Policy No. 871 1700.Q~
Policy No. F0005978
BPI/MS Insurance Corp. Ari~___<:::_:_ Panganiban Policy No. FO 151320
Performance Foreign Exchange Corp. ___8..~.n~1e~~~ombeo, Jr.

-------1
2649
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante I 163-0073-51
BPI _Joccly,,L Bolante 1164-0006-28
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 0200 I I 160000000 I 163007351
'--- BPI __ _ Jocelv!1 I. Bolante 020011 160000000 I 166009033
BPI +_____
.l9£~ly12_!__1_3olantc 0200111600000001167001978
Union Bank JoL:clyn I. Bolante 009550000582
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. jJocelyn I. Bolante 12498004_4_5_ _ _--1
Standard Chartered Bank _______J()_C_el,)'_I]__ I. Rolante BPY 280851 I00002150

~
Decision 9 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

In the meantime, the Republic filed an Ex Parte Application 35

docketed as AMLC Case No. 07-001 before the RTC. Drawing on the
authority provided by the AMLC through Resolution No. 90, the ex parte
application sought the issuance of an order allowing an inquiry into the 70
accounts.

36
The RTC found probable cause and issued the Order prayed for. It
allowed the AMLC to inquire into and examine the 70 bank deposits or
investments and the related web of accounts.

On 20 October 2008, this Court denied with finality the motion for
37
reconsideration filed by the Republic in Eugenio. The Court reiterated that
Section 11 38 of R.A. 9160, as then worded, did not allow a bank inquiry
order to be issued ex parte; and that the concerns of the Republic about the
consequences of this ruling could be more properly lodged in the legislature.

Thus, in order to comply with the ruling in Eugenio, the Republic

filed an Amended and Supplemental Application 39 in AMLC Case No. 07-
001 before the RTC. The Republic sought, after notice to the account
holders, the issuance of an order allowing an inquiry into the original 70
accounts plus the six bank accounts that were the subject of AMLC SP Case
No. 06-003. A summary hearing thereon ensued.

On the belief that the finality of Eugenio constituted a supervening

event that might justify the filing of another petition for a freeze order, the
AMLC issued Resolution No. 5. 40 The resolution authorized the filing of a
new petition for the issuance of a freeze order against 24 41 of the 31 accounts
previously frozen by the CA.
:is Id. at 189-206.
36
Id. at 264-267; Order dated 25 July 2008.
37
Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 212-216.
38
Section 11. Authority to Inquire into Bank Deposits. --- Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act
No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No. 6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the
AMLC may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment with any banking institution or
non-bank financial institution upon order of any competent court in cases of violation of this Act, when it
has been established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments are related to an unlawful
activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under Section 4 hereof; except that
no court order shall be required in cases involving unlawful activities defined in Sections 3(i)( 1), (2) and
( 12).
To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine
any deposit or investment with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution when the
examination is made in the course of a periodic or special examination, in accordance with the rules of
examination of the BSP.
39
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 333-362; dated 22 December 2008.
40
Id. at 363-365; dated 26 January 2009.
41
Id at 364-365. The 24 accounts are the following:

1----
covered institution
Banco de Oro
-r-=-
------ - -
------
,·count Name
nuel S. Bombeo
Account Number
12160008687
Banco de Oro :I C. Panganiban 10160465761
Banco de Oro I H ·icl C. Panganiban or 0160444063
_____ [__ _ ~~avina Panganiban
Citibank I Katherine Bombeo 8243051259
East West Bank _ _ ____ Moluga!1 04-02-04043-2

~
Decision 10 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

42
Hence, the Republic filed an Urgent Ex Parte Petition docketed as
CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 before the CA seeking the issuance of a freeze
order against the 24 accounts.

In the Resolution dated 4 February 2009, 43 the CA issued a freeze

order effective for 20 days. The freeze order required the covered
institutions of the 24 accounts to desist from and not allow any transaction
involving the identified monetary instruments. It also asked the covered
institutions to submit a detailed written return to the CA within 24 hours
from receipt of the freeze order.

A summary hearing was conducted by the CA for the purpose of

determining whether to modify, lift or extend the freeze order. 44 Thereafter,
the parties were required to submit memoranda.

THE CHALLENGED RESOLUTIONS

The assailed CA Resolution dated 27 February 2009 45 denied the

application to extend the freeze order issued on 4 February 2009.

The CA found that the Republic had committed forum shopping. 46

Specifically, the appellate court found that the parties in CA-G.R. AMLC
No. 00024 were the same as those in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. The
petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 sought the issuance of a freeze order
against the same accounts covered by CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. Finally,

Cont.
East West Bank Mo Jugan 4302005295
East West Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 04-02-01842-9
Maybank Phils., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo I 016-003434-3
Maybank Phils., Inc. Samuel S. Bombeo
----
1716-000 I 18-9
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 247-812382-8
PNB Samuel S. Bombeo 24 7-525602-9
PNB ---
LIVECOR 273-850001-9 --
PNB LIVECOR
·--·-
273-502826-2
Union Bank Samuel S. Bombeo 00894582704-2 --
Insular Life Assurance Co. I\ rie l__<:_;_f angan iban Policy No. 2315613
Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. Samuel S. Bombeo Policy No. 871170009
BPI/MS Insurance Corp. Ariel C. Panganiban Policy No. F0005978
Performance Foreign Exchange Corp. Samuel S. Bombeo, Jr. 2649
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante I 164-0006-28
BPI J~.s;~lyn I. Bolante 0200111600000001163007351
BPI Jocelyn I. Bolante 02001I1600000001166009033
BPI I Jo~~!!.l__B~lante 0200111600000001167001978
Union Bank -+ Jocelyn I. Bolante 009550000582
Rizal Commercial Banking C~fl:__ __ _:_ ___ l_sl~elyn_!.:_~olante 1249800445 --

42
Id. at 366-404; filed on 2 February 2009 .
.n Id. at 472-483. The Resolution issued by the CA First Division was penned by Associate Justice
Scsinando E. Villon, with Presiding Justice Conradl' M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam
concurring.
44
Id. at 64; conducted on 12 February 200C).
15
Id. at 58-68.
46
Id. at 66-67.

~
Decision 11 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

the rights asserted and reliefs prayed for in both petitions were substantially
founded on the same facts, thereby raising identical causes of action and
issues.

The CA found no merit in the assertion of the Republic that the ruling
in Eugenio was a supervening event that prevented the latter from
concluding its financial investigation into the accounts covered by the freeze
order in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. 47 The CA noted that Eugenio was
promulgated on 14 February 2008, or almost five months before the
Republic filed CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 before the CA and AMLC Case
No. 07-001 before the RTC. According to the appellate court, since the
Republic was faced with the imminent finality of Eugenio, it should have
taken steps to expedite the conduct of the inquiry and the examination of the
bank deposits or investments and the related web of accounts.

At any rate, the CA found that the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00024 was effectively a prayer for the further extension of the 5-month, 20-
day freeze order already issued in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014. 48 The
extension sought is proscribed under Section 53 of Administrative Circular
No. 05-11-04-SC. 49 According to this provision, the effectivity of a freeze
order may be extended for good cause shown for a period not exceeding six
months.

Aggrieved, the Republic filed the instant petition for review on

certiorari with an urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction docketed as G.R. No. 186717.

On 25 March 2009, this Court issued a Status Quo Ante Order50

enjoining the implementation of the assailed CA Resolution.

51
At the time of the submission of respondents' Comment and
petitioner's Consolidated Reply 52 in G.R. No. 186717, the RTC issued the
challenged Resolution dated 3 July 2009 53 in AMLC Case No. 07-001. The
trial court denied the Republic's application for an order allowing an inquiry
into the total of 76 bank deposits and investments of respondents.

47
Id. at 67-68.
48
Id. at 68.
49
Entitled "Rules of Procedure in Cases of Civil Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary
Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving, or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money
Laundering Offense under Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended," dated 15 December 2005.
50
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 520-522.
51
Id. at 537-569 (Respondents Jocelyn I. Bolante. et al.), 609-629 (Respondent National Livelihood
Development Corporation. formerly LIVECOR), 637-656 (Respondents Ariel C. Panganiban, et al.).
52
Id. at 689-700.
53
Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 42-49.

~
 Decision 12 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

The RTC found no probable cause to believe that the deposits and
5
investments of respondents were related to an unlawful activity. -i It pointed
out that the Republic, in support of the latter's application, relied merely on
two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54 and the court
testimony of witness Thelma Espina of the AMLC Secretariat. According to
the RTC, Senate Committee Report No. 54 cannot be taken "hook, line and
sinker, " 55 because the Senate only conducts inquiries in aid of legislation.
Citing Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
56
Jnvestigations, the trial court pronounced that the Senate cannot assume the
power reposed in prosecutorial bodies and the courts - the power to
determine who are liable for a crime or an illegal activity. 57 On the other
hand, the trial court noted that the testimony of the witness merely relied on
Senate Committee Report No. 54. The latter "admitted that the AMLC did
58
not bother to confirm the veracity of the statements contained therein."

The RTC instead gave credence to the Audit Report prepared by

COA. While outlining the irregularities that attended the use of the fertilizer
fund, COA also showed that none of the funds were channeled or released to
59
LIVECOR, Molugan or AGS. The trial court also took note of the
evidence presented by Bolante that he had ceased to be a member of the
board of trustees of LIVECOR on 1 February 2003, or more than 14 months
before the transfers were made by LIVECOR to Molugan as indicated in the
suspicious transaction reports submitted by PNB. 6° Furthermore, the RTC
found that the transfers made by LIVECOR to Molugan and AGS came
from the P60 million Priority Development Assistance Fund of Senator
Joker Arroyo. 61

The Republic moved for reconsideration, but the motion was denied
by the RTC in the challenged Order dated 13 November 2009. 62

Hence, the Republic filed the instant petition for certiorari docketed as
G.R. No. 190357.

The Comi resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 190357 with G.R. No.
186717, considering that the issues raised in the petitions were closely
intertwined and related. 63 On 6 December 2010, these petitions were given
due course, and all parties were required to submit memoranda. 64

54
Id. at 45.
55
Id.
56
586 Phil. 135 (2008).
57
Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), pp. 45-46.
58
Id. at 46.
59 Id.
60
Id. at 46-47.
61
Id. at 47-48.
12
' Id. at 50.
61
Id. at 513-514; Resolution dated I 0 March 20 I 0.

~
M Id. at 693-694.
 Decision 13 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Amid reports that the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) had

filed plunder cases against those involved in the fertilizer fund scam, the
Court issued the Resolution dated 16 November 2011. 65 We required the
AMLC and the Ombudsman to move in the premises and jointly manifost
whether the accounts, subject of the instant petitions, were in any way
related to the plunder cases already filed.

66
In their compliance dated 14 March 2012, the AMLC and the
Ombudsman manifested that the plunder case filed in connection with the
fertilizer fund scam included Bolante, but not the other persons and entities
whose bank accounts are now the subject of the instant petitions. That
plunder case was docketed as SB-l 1-CRM-0260 before the Second Division
of the Sandiganbayan.

ISSUES

The following are the issues for our resolution:

1. Whether the Republic committed forum shopping in filing CA-G.R.

AMLC No. 00024 before the CA

2. Whether the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that

there exists no probable cause to ailow an inquiry into the total of 76
deposits and investments of respondents

OuRRULING

I.
The Republic committed forum shopping.

As we ruled in Chua v. Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., 67 forum

shopping is committed in three ways: ( 1) filing multiple cases based on the
same cause of action and with the same prayer, where the previous case has
not yet been resolved (the ground for dismissal is litis pendentia); (2) filing
multiple cases based on the same cause of action and with the same prayer,
where the previous case has finally been resolved (the ground for dismissal
is res judicata); and (3) filing multiple cases based on the same cause of
action, but with different prayers (splitting of causes of action, where the
ground for dismissal is also either litis pendentia or res judicata).

In the instant petitions, the Republic focused its energies on

discussing why it did not commit forum shopping on the ground of litis
pendentia. In its Memorandum, it argued:
65
Id. at 829-830.
66
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 1282-1290.

f
67
613 Phil. 143 (2009).
Decision 14 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

While it is true that a previous freeze order was issued in CA-G.R.

AMLC No. 00014 covering some of the accounts subject of CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00024, CA-G.R. AAILC No. ()0()14 had already attained finality
when the second petition was filed, neither petitioner nor any of the
respondents interposed an appeal therefrom, pursuant to Section 57 of the
Rule of Procedure in Cases of Civil F01feiture, etc .. The principle of lit is
pendentia presupposes the pendency of at least one case when a second
case is filed. Such situation does not exist in the present controversy since
CA-G.R. AMLC No. ()()014 was no longer pending but has attained finality
. . was ·1-11 e d .(iX
w hen t l1e secon d pet1tion

In a clear illustration of the phrase, out of the fi~ying pan and into the
fire, the Republic vigorously resisted the application of forum shopping on
the ground of litis pendentia, only to unwittingly admit that it had possibly
committed forum shopping on the ground of res judicata.

We are not even sure where the Republic got the notion that the CA
found "that the filing of the second petition for freeze order constitutes
69
forum shopping on the ground of litis pendentia." In its assailed
70
Resolution, the appellate court aptly cited Quinsay v. CA, stating that
"forum shopping concurs not only when a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another, but also where the elements of litis
pendentia are present." 71 It then went on to enumerate the aforecited
elements of litis pendentia, namely: (I) identity of parties, or those that
represent the same interests in both actions; (2) identity of rights asserted
and relief sought, with the relief founded on the same facts; and (3) identity
of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in one
proceeding will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res
judicata in the other. The CA only discussed how these elements were
present in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 and CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 in
relation to each other. Nowhere did the CA make any categorical
pronouncement that the Republic had committed forum shopping on the
ground of litis pendentia.

With this clarification, we discuss how all the elements of litis

pendentia are present in the two petitions for the issuance of a freeze order.

First, there is identity of parties. In both petitions, the Republic is the

petitioner seeking the issuance of a freeze order against the bank deposits
and investments. The 24 accounts sought to be frozen in CA-G.R. AMLC
No. 00024 were part of the 31 accounts previously frozen in CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00014, 72 and the holders of these accounts were once again
named as respondents.

68
Rollo (G.R. No. 185717), p. 1202.
1
' > Id. at 29.
70
393 Phil. 838 (2000).
71
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), p. 66.
7
Sec notes 3 4 and 4 1.

(
"
Decision 15 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Second, there is an identity of rights asserted and relief sought based

on the same facts. The AMLC filed both petitions in pursuance of its
function to investigate suspicious transactions, money laundering activities,
and other violations of R.A. 9160 as amended. 73 The law also granted the
AMLC the authority to make an ex parte application before the CA for the
freezing of any monetary instrument or property alleged to be the proceeds
of any unlawful activity, as defined in Section 3(i) thereof. 74

Both petitions sought the issuance of a freeze order against bank

deposits and investments believed to be related to the fertilizer fund scam.
Notably, while the petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 narrated the facts
smTounding the issuance of AMLC Resolution Nos. 75 and 40, 75 the petition
in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 used as its foundation the previous grant of
the freeze order in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 and the extensions of its
effectivity. 76 Nevertheless, both petitions highlighted the role of Senate
Committee Report No. 54 in providing AMLC with the alleged link between
the fertilizer fund scam and the bank deposits and investments sought to be
frozen. 77

Third, the judgment in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 barred the

proceedings in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 by resjudicata.

Res judicata is defined as a matter adjudged, a thing judicially acted

upon or decided, or a thing or matter settled by judgment. 78 It operates as a
bar to subsequent proceedings by prior judgment when the following
requisites concur: (1) the former judgment is final; (2) it is rendered by a
court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it is a
judgment or an order on the merits; and (4) there is - between the first and
the second actions - identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action. 79

Clearly, the resolution in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 extending the

effectivity of the freeze order until 20 December 2008 attained finality upon
the failure of the parties to assail it within 15 days from notice. The
Resolution was rendered by the CA, which had jurisdiction over applications
for the issuance of a freeze order under Section 10 80 of R.A. 9160 as
amended. It was a judgment on the merits by the appellate court, which

73
R.A. 9160, Section 7(5).
74
Id. at Section 7(6).
75
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 80-85.
76
Id. at 376-384.
77
Id. at 83-85, 391-394.
78
Riviera Golf Club, inc. v. CL"'A Holdings, B. V, G.R. No. 173783, 17June2015, 758 SCRA 691.
79
Mal/ion v. Alcantara, 536 Phil. I 049 (2006 ).
80
Section l 0. Freezing of Monetary instrument or f'roperty. -- The Cowi of Appeals, upon application ex
parte by the AMLC and after determination that probable cause exists that any monetary instrument or
property is in any way related to an unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereot~ may issue a freeze
order which shall be effective immediately. The freeze order shall be for a period of twenty (20) days
unless extended by the court.

~
 Decision 16 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

made a determination of the rights and obligations of the parties with respect
to the causes of action and the subject matter. 81 The determination was based
on the pleadings and evidence presented by the parties during the summary
hearing and their respective memoranda. Finally, there was - between CA-
G.R. AMLC No. 00014 and CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 - identity of
parties, subject matter and causes of action.

The Republic's commission of forum shopping is further illustrated

by its awareness that the effectivity of the freeze order in CA-G.R. AMLC
No. 00014 had already been extended to 5 months and 20 days. Under
82
Section 53 of A.M. No. 05-11-04-SC, 83 the original 20-day effectivity
period of a freeze order may only be extended by the CA for good cause for
a period not exceeding six months. Because of this predicament, the
Republic sought to avoid seeking a further extension that is clearly
prohibited by the rules by allowing the extended freeze order in CA-G.R.
AMLC No. 00014 to lapse on 20 December 2008. Instead, it filed the
petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 alluding to the exact same facts and
arguments but citing a special factual circumstance that allegedly
distinguished it from CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014.

The Republic argued that CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00024 was filed at the
advent of Eugenio. The ruling was a supervening event that prevented the
Republic from concluding its exhaustive financial investigation within the
auspices of the bank inquiry order granted by the RTC in AMLC Case No.
07-001 and the freeze order granted by the CA in CA-G.R. AMLC No.
00014. 84

We find no merit in this argument. The promulgation of Eugenio was

not a supervening event under the circumstances. "Supervening events refer
to facts which transpire after judgment has become final and executory or to
new circumstances which developed after the judgment has acquired
finality, including matters which the parties were not aware of prior to or
during the trial as they were not yet in existence at that time." 85

As aptly pointed out by the appellate court, Eugenio was promulgated

five months before the filing of the petition in CA-G .R. AMLC No. 00014.

81
De Leon v. De Liana, G.R. No. 212277, I J February 2015, 750 SCRA 53.
82
Section 53. Freeze Order. -
(a) Effeclivity; post-issuance hearing. -- The freeze order shall be effective immediately for a period of
twenty days. Within the twenty-day period. the cowi shall conduct a summary hearing, with notice to the
parties, to determine whether or not to modi(y or ii11 the freeze order, or extend its effectivity as hereinafter
provided.
(b) Extension. - On motion of the petitioner filed before the expiration of twenty days from issuance of a
freeze order, the court may for good cause extend its eftectivity for a period not exceeding six months.
83
Entitled "Rules of Procedure in Cases of Ci vii Forfeiture, Asset Preservation, and Freezing of Monetary
Instrument, Property, or Proceeds Representing, Involving. or Relating to an Unlawful Activity or Money
Laundering Offense under Repuhlic Act No. 9160, w; J\ "'l'nded," dated 15 December 2005.
84
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 40-41, 1203-1204.
85
Natalia Realty, Inc. v. CA, 440 Phil. l (2002).

~
Decision 17 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Indeed the Decision therein only attained finality upon the denial of the
motion for reconsideration on 20 October 2008, or before the filing of the
petition in CA-G.R. AMLC No. 0002. The ruling, however, cannot be
regarded as a matter that the parties were not aware of prior to or during the
trial ofCA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014.

In fact, it was because of Eugenio that CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014

was filed in the first place.

We have not painstakingly narrated all the relevant facts of these

cases for nothing. It should be noted that before the ruling in Eugenio, the
AMLC commenced its investigations into the fertilizer fund scam by filing
petitions for bank inquiry orders. Thus, it issued Resolutions No. 75 and 90,
both authorizing the filing of petitions for the issuance of orders allowing an
inquiry into the pertinent bank deposits and investments.

According to the Court in Eugenio, "a requirement that the application

for a bank inquiry order be done with notice to the account holder will alert
the latter that there is a plan to inspect his bank account on the belief that the
funds therein are involved in an unlawful activity or money laundering
offense."86 Alarmed by the implications of this ruling, the AMLC changed
tack and decided to pursue the only other remedy within its power to obtain
ex parte at the time. Hence, it issued Resolution No. 40 authorizing the filing
of CA-G.R. AMLC No. 00014 for the issuance of a freeze order to preserve
the 70 bank deposits and investments and prevent the account holders from
withdrawing them. The pertinent portion of AMLC Resolution No. 40
provides:

In the Resolution No. 90, dated October 26, 2007, the Council
found probable cause that the accounts of the subject individuals and
entities are related to the fertilizer fund scam and resolved to authorize the
tiling of a petition for the issuance of a freeze order allowing inquiry into
the following accounts:

xx xx

However, in Republic vs. Eugenio (G.R. No. 174629, February 14,

2008), the Supreme Court ruled that proceedings in applications for
issuance of an order allowing inquiry should be conducted afl:er due notice
to the respondents/account holders.

In the light of the aforesaid ruling of the Supreme Court, the

Council resolved to:

1. Authorize the AMLC Secretariat to file with the Court of

Appeals, through the Office of the Solicitor General, a petition for freeze
order against the following bank accounts and all related web of accounts
wherever these may be found: 87
86
Republic v. Eugenio, supra at I~5.
87
Rollo (G.R. No. 186717), pp. 69-71.

~
Decision 18 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Notably, it was only after the freeze order had been issued that AMLC
Case No. 07-001 was filed before the RTC to obtain a bank inquiry order
covering the same 70 accounts.

Presently, while Eugenio still provides much needed guidance in the

resolution of issues relating to the freeze and bank inquiry orders, the
Decision in that case no longer applies insofar as it requires that notice be
given to the account holders before a bank inquiry order may be issued.
Upon the enactment of R.A. 10167 on J8 June 2012, Section 11 of R.A.
9160 was further amended to allow the AMLC to file an ex parte application
for an order allowing an inquiry into bank deposits and investments. Section
1 I of R.A. 9160 now reads:

Section 11. Autho6ty to Inquire into Bank Deposits. - Notwithstanding

the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, Republic Act No.
6426, as amended, Republic Act No. 8791, and other laws, the AMLC
may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment,
including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank
financial institution upon order of any competent court based on an ex
parte application in cases of violations of this Act, when it has been
established that there is probable cause that the deposits or investments,
including related accounts involved, are related to an unlawful activity as
defined in Section 3(i) hereof or a money laundering offense under
Section 4 hereof; except that no court order shall be required in cases
involving activities defined in Section 3(i)( 1), (2 ), and ( 12) hereof~ and
felonies or offenses of a nature similar to those mentioned in Section
3(i)(l ), (2), and (12), which are Punishable under the penal laws of other
countries, and te1Torism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined
and penalized under Republic Act No. 9372.

The Court of Appeals shall act on the application to inquire in lo or

examine any depositor or investment with any banking institution or non-
bank financial institution within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the
application.

To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng

Pilipinas may, in the course of a periodic or special examination, check the
compliance of a Covaed institution with the requirements of the AMLA
and its implementing rules and regulations.

For purposes of this section, ·related accounts' shall refer to

accounts, the funds and sources of which originated from and/or are
materially linked to the monetary instrument(s) or property(ies) subject of
the freeze order(s).

A court order ex parte must first be obtained before the AMLC can
inquire into these related Accounts: Provided, That the procedure for the
ex parte application of the ex parte court order for the principal account
shall be the same with that of the related accounts.

The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and the
related accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article fll,

~
 Decision 19 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby incorporated

by reference. (Emphasis supplied)

The constitutionality of Section 11 ofR.A. 9160, as presently worded,

was upheld by the Comi En Banc in the recently promulgated Subido
Pagente Certeza Mendoza and Binay Law Offices v. CA. 88 The Court therein
ruled that the AMLC's ex parte application for a bank inquiry, which is
allowed under Section 11 of R.A. 9160, does not violate substantive due
process. There is no such violation, because the physical seizure of the
targeted corporeal property is not contemplated in any form by the law. 89
The AMLC may indeed be authorized to apply ex parte for an inquiry into
bank accounts, but only in pursuance of its investigative functions akin to
90
those of the National Bureau of Investigation. As the AMLC does not
exercise quasi-judicial functions, its inquiry by court order into bank
deposits or investments cannot be said to violate any person's constitutional
right to procedural due process. 91

As regards the purported violation of the right to privacy, the Court

recalled the pronouncement in Eugenio that the source of the right to privacy
governing bank deposits is statutory, not constitutional. 92 The legislature
may validly carve out exceptions to the rule on the secrecy of bank deposits,
and one such legislation is Section 11 ofR.A. 9160. 93

The Comi in Subido emphasized that the holder of a bank account that
is the subject of a bank inquiry order issued ex parte has the opportunity to
question the issuance of such an order after a freeze order has been issued
against the account. 94 The account holder can then question not only the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of the freeze order, but also the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of the bank inquiry order. 95

II.
The RTC's finding that there was no
probable cause for the issuance of a
bank inquiry order was not tainted
with grave abuse of discretion.

Rule 10.2 of the Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing

Republic Act No. 9160, as Amended by Republic Act No. 9194, defined

88
G.R. No. 216914, 6 December 2016.
89
Id. at I I.
90
Id. at I 1-19.
91 Id.
92
Id. at 20-23.
93
Id. at 23.
91
· Id. at 27-39.
95 Id.

~
 Decision 20 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

probable cause as "such facts and circumstances which would lead a

reasonably discreet, prudent or cautious man to believe that an unlawful
activity and/or a money laundering offense is about to be, is being or has
been committed and that the account or any monetary instrument or property
subject thereof sought to be frozen is in any way related to said unlawful
96
activity and/or money laundering offense." As we observed in Subido, this
definition refers to probable cause for the issuance of a freeze order against
an account or any monetary instrument or property subject thereof.
Nevertheless, we shall likewise be guided by the pronouncement in Ligot v.
Republic 97 that "probable cause refers to the sufficiency of the relation
between an unlawful activity and the property or monetary instrument."

In the issuance of a bank inquiry order, the power to determine the

existence of probable cause is lodged in the trial court. As we ruled in
Eugenio:

Section 11 itself requires that it be established that "there is probable cause

that the deposits or investments are related to unlawful activities," and it
obviously is the court which stands as arbiter whether there is indeed such
probable cause. The process of inquiring into the existence of probable
cause would involve the function of determination reposed on the trial
court. Determination clearly implies a function of adjudication on the part
of the trial cowi, and not a mechanical application of a standard pre-
determination by some other body. The word "determination'' implies
deliberation and is, in normal legal contemplation, equivalent to ''the
decision of a court of justice."

The court receiving the application for inquiry order cannot simply
take the AMLC's word that probable cause exists that the deposits or
investments are related to an unlawful activity. It will have to exercise its
own determinative function in order to be convinced of such fact. 98

For the trial court to issue a bank inquiry order, it is necessary for the
AMLC to be able to show specific facts and circumstances that provide a
link between an unlawful activity or a money laundering offense, on the one
hand, and the account or monetary instrument or property sought to be
examined on the other hand. In this case, the R TC found the evidence
presented by the AMLC wanting. For its part, the latter insists that the
RTC's determination was tainted with grave abuse of discretion for ignoring
the glaring existence of probable cause that the subject bank deposits and
investments were related to an unlawful activity.

Grave abuse of discretion is present where power is exercised in an

arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal

% Id. at 32.
97
705 Phil. 477 (2013). 501-502.
98
Rcpuhlic v. Eugenio, supra at 126.

~
 Decision 21 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

hostility, that is so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive

duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law. 99 For certiorari to lie, it must be shown that there was
a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power - the very antithesis
of the judicial prerogative. 100

We find no reason to conclude that the R TC determined the existence

of probable cause, or lack thereof, in an arbitrary and whimsical manner.

To repeat, the application for the issuance of a bank inquiry order was
supported by only two pieces of evidence: Senate Committee Report No. 54
and the testimony of witness Thelma Espina.

We have had occasion to rule that reports of the Senate stand on the
same level as other pieces of evidence submitted by the parties, and that the
facts and arguments presented therein should undergo the same level of
judicial scrutiny and analysis. 101 As courts have the discretion to accept or
reject them, 102 no grave error can be ascribed to the RTC for rejecting and
refusing to give probative value to Senate Committee Report No. 54.

At any rate, Senate Committee Report No. 54 only provided the

AMLC with a description of the alleged unlawful activity, which is the
fertilizer fund scam. It also named the alleged mastermind of the scam, who
was respondent Bolante. The entire case of the AMLC, however, hinged on
the following excerpt of Senate Committee Report No. 54:

But Undersecretary Bolante's power over the agriculture department was

widely known. And it encompasses more than what the Administrative
Code provided.

In fact, at the time that he was Undersecretary, Jocelyn Bolante was

concurrently appointed by the President in other powerful positions: as
Acting Chairman of the National Irrigation Administration, as Acting
Chairman of the Livelihood Corporation xx x. 103 (Emphasis supplied)

It was this excerpt that led the AMLC to connect the fertilizer fund
scam to the suspicious transaction reports earlier submitted to it by PNB.

However, the RTC found during trial that respondent Bolante had
ceased to be a member of the board of trustees of LIVECOR for 14 months
before the latter even made the initial transaction, which was the subject of
the suspicious transaction reports. Furthermore, the RTC took note that

99
Imutan v. CA, 190 Phil. 233 ( 1981 ).
100 Id.
101
Manotok Realty, inc. v. CLT Reulty De1·elop111e11f Cn1p., 565 Phil. 59 (2007).
102 Id.

~
103
Rollo (G.R. No. 190357), p. 72.
Decision 22 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

according to the Audit Report submitted by the Commission on Audit, no

part of the P728 million fertilizer fund was ever released to LIVECOR.

We note that in the RTC Order dated 17 November 2006 in AMLC

SP Case No. 06-003, the AMLC was already allowed ex parte to inquire into
and examine the six bank deposits or investments and the related web of
accounts of LIVECOR, Molugan, AGS, Samuel S. Bombeo and Ariel
Panganiban. With the resources available to the AMLC, coupled with a bank
inquiry order granted 15 months before Eugenio was even pro mu Igated, the
AMLC should have been able to obtain more evidence establishing a more
substantive link tying Bolante and the fertilizer fund scam to LIVECOR. It
did not help that the AMLC failed to include in its application for a bank
inquiry order in AMLC SP Case No. 06-003 LIVECOR's PNB account as
indicated in the suspicious transaction reports. This PNB account was
included only in the application for a bank inquiry order in AMLC Case No.
07-001.

As it stands, the evidence relied upon by the AMLC in 2006 was still
the same evidence it used to apply for a bank inquiry order in 2008.
Regrettably, this evidence proved to be insufficient when weighed against
that presented by the respondents, who were given notice and the
opportunity to contest the issuance of the bank inquiry order pursuant to
Eugenio. In fine, the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
denying the application.

WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 186717 is DENIED. The

Court of Appeals Resolution dated 27 February 2009 in CA-G.R. AMLC
No. 00024 is AFFIRMED.

The petition in G.R. No. 190357 is DISMISSED. The Resolution

dated 3 July 2009 and Order dated 13 November 2009 issued by the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 59, in AMLC Case No. 07-001 are
AFFIRMED.

The Status Quo Ante Order issued by this Court on 25 March 2009 is
hereby LIFTED.

SO ORDERED.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice, Chairperson
 I
Decision 23 G.R. Nos. 186717 & 190357

WE CONCUR:

~ J/.A~~.All ~ ~
TERESITA JTEo~AM>o-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice

~t'k~;
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
,Af) ~/
ESTELA 'MJ PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, /\rticle VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Dt;ci.;:ion had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Comi's
Division.

M:ARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice