Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 637 views

    Case

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    Norlina Sibayan, an assistant bank manager, was charged by Elizabeth Alda with unauthorized deductions from her savings account and failure to post check deposits. Norlina argued this was meant to harass her in retaliation for a previous case filed by the bank against Elizabeth for theft, estafa, and unlawful access device use regarding laundering funds erroneously credited to Elizabeth's daughter's account. The Bangko Sentral found a prima facie case against Norlina. Norlina then filed a motion to produce bank documents from UCPB and BPI regarding accounts allegedly owned by Elizabeth's daughter, which was denied as the accounts were privileged information protected by law. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, affirming

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    637 views2 pages
    Norlina Sibayan, an assistant bank manager, was charged by Elizabeth Alda with unauthorized deductions from her savings account and failure to post check deposits. Norlina argued this was meant to harass her in retaliation for a previous case filed by the bank against Elizabeth for theft, estafa, and unlawful access device use regarding laundering funds erroneously credited to Elizabeth's daughter's account. The Bangko Sentral found a prima facie case against Norlina. Norlina then filed a motion to produce bank documents from UCPB and BPI regarding accounts allegedly owned by Elizabeth's daughter, which was denied as the accounts were privileged information protected by law. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, affirming

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Norlina Sibayan, an assistant bank manager, was charged by Elizabeth Alda with unauthorized deductions from her savings account and failure to post check deposits. Norlina argued this was meant to harass her in retaliation for a previous case filed by the bank against Elizabeth for theft, estafa, and unlawful access device use regarding laundering funds erroneously credited to Elizabeth's daughter's account. The Bangko Sentral found a prima facie case against Norlina. Norlina then filed a motion to produce bank documents from UCPB and BPI regarding accounts allegedly owned by Elizabeth's daughter, which was denied as the accounts were privileged information protected by law. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, affirming

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    637 views2 pages

    Case

    Uploaded by

    Francis Coronel Jr.
    Norlina Sibayan, an assistant bank manager, was charged by Elizabeth Alda with unauthorized deductions from her savings account and failure to post check deposits. Norlina argued this was meant to harass her in retaliation for a previous case filed by the bank against Elizabeth for theft, estafa, and unlawful access device use regarding laundering funds erroneously credited to Elizabeth's daughter's account. The Bangko Sentral found a prima facie case against Norlina. Norlina then filed a motion to produce bank documents from UCPB and BPI regarding accounts allegedly owned by Elizabeth's daughter, which was denied as the accounts were privileged information protected by law. The Supreme Court upheld this denial, affirming

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Norlina Sibayan vs Alda

    Gr. No. 233395January 17 2018


    Ponente; Velasco Jr., J

    FACTS:
    The respondent, Elizabeth Alda sent a letter-complaint to the Office of
    Special Investigation of Bangko Sentral (OSI-BSP), charging Norlina, the assistant
    manager of Baco De Oro, with unauthorized deduction of her Savings account, as
    well as for failure to post certain check deposits to such account.
    The complaint alleged that while Elizabeth did not make any withdrawals
    from her BDO savings account from 2008-2009, its balance ₱1,071,561.73 as of
    July 2008 was reduced to only ₱334.47 by October 2008.
    Further, Elizabeth claimed that two crossed manager's checks, to wit: 1)
    UCPB Check in the amount of 2,743,346 issued by Ferdinand Oriente and BPI
    Check ₱2,237,341, issued by Jovelyn Oriente were not posted on her BDO
    savings account despite the fact that the said checks were deposited.
    As for Norlina's defense, she argued that the charges were only meant to
    harass her and BDO as the latter previously filed a criminal case against Elizabeth,
    her·cohorts, for theft, estafa, and violation of Republic Act No. 8484, otherwise
    known as the Access Devise Regulation. The said case proceeded from the acts
    of Elizabeth and her codefendants therein of withdrawing and laundering various
    amounts erroneously credited by BDO to Elizabeth’s daughter, Ruby Visa Electron
    Fast Card Account (Fastcard) which Elizabeth opened for and in the name of Ruby.
    BDO, however, discovered that from November 2007 to September 2008,
    Ruby was able to withdraw the total amount of ₱64,229,297.50 despite Elizabeth
    only having remitted the amount of ₱1,645,48.00 BDO conducted an investigation
    and discovered that Ruby learned of the erroneous crediting of funds as early as
    November 2007 and utilized BDO's system error to successfully launder money by
    transferring funds withdrawn from Ruby's Fastcard Account to various bank
    accounts in the Philippines under the names of Elizabeth, Ruby and their friends
    and relatives
    After the parties' submission of their respective pleadings, the OSI-BSP
    issued a Resolution finding a prima facie case against Norlina for Conducting Business in an Unsafe
    or Unsound Manner under Section 56.2 of the "The General Banking Law.
    Meanwhile, Norlina filed a Motion for Production of Documents praying that
    UCPB and BPI be ordered to produce and allow the inspection and copying of the Statements of Account
    pertaining to UCPB and BPI Accounts, alleging that Ruby is the legal and beneficial owner of both accounts.
    However, her motion was denied.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the petitioner, Norlina Sibayan is entitled for the production
    of Bank Documents.
    HELD: NO. The Supreme Court held that the denial of the motion for production
    of bank documents pertaining to UCPB and BPI 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 that: 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.
    Clearly then, the Requests to Answer Written Interrogatories and Motion for
    Production of Documents were both unnecessary and improper.

    You might also like