G.R. No. L-18343             September 30, 1965 SEC. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth.

— If in accordance with the

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK and EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, in his capacity provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-
as President of the Philippine National Bank, plaintiffs-appellants, nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his
vs.
incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an
EMILIO A. GANCAYCO and FLORENTINO FLOR, Special Prosecutors of the
amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary
Dept. of Justice, defendants-appellees.
Ramon B. de los Reyes and Zoilo P. Perlas for plaintiffs-appellants. and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or
Villamor & Gancayco for defendants-appellees. removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of
such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition
REGALA, J.: through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits
shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section,
FACTS:
notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.
Defendants Emilio A. Gancayco and Florentino Flor, as special prosecutors of
Because of the threat of prosecution, plaintiffs filed an action for
the Department of Justice, required the plaintiff Philippine National Bank
declaratory judgment in the Manila CFI. After trial, during which Senator
(PNB) to produce at a hearing on February 20, 1961 the records of the bank
Arturo M. Tolentino, author of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
deposits of Ernesto T. Jimenez, former administrator of the Agricultural
testified, the court rendered judgment, sustaining the power of the
Credit and Cooperative Administration, who was then under investigation
defendants to compel the disclosure of bank accounts of ACCFA
for unexplained wealth. In declining to reveal its records, PNB invoked RA
Administrator Jimenez. The court said that, by enacting Section 8 of RA
1405 which provides:
3019, Congress clearly intended to provide an additional ground for the
SEC. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in examination of bank deposits. Without such provision, the court added
the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of prosecutors would be hampered if not altogether frustrated in the
the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby prosecution of those charged with having acquired unexplained wealth
considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be while in public office.
examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official,
From that judgment, plaintiffs appealed to this Court. In brief, plaintiffs’
bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in
position is that section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law “simply means that such bank
cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of
deposits may be included or added to the assets of the Government official
bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money
or employee for the purpose of computing his unexplained wealth if and
deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation.
when the same are discovered or revealed in the manner authorized by
On the other hand, the defendants cited the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Section 2 of RA 1405, which are (1) upon written permission of the
Practices Act (RA 3019) in support of their claim of authority and demanded depositor; (2) in cases of impeachment; (3) upon order of a competent court
anew that plaintiff Eduardo Z. Romualdez, as bank president, produce the in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials; and (4) in cases
records or he would be prosecuted for contempt. The defendants invoked where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the
Sec. 8 of Ra 3019 which states that: litigation.”
Issues: notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary." The only conclusion possible is that
section 8 of the Anti-Graft Law is intended to amend section 2 of Republic Act No. 1405 by
providing additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits.
1.  Whether or not RA 3019 which took effect on August 17, 1960 is a
general law which cannot be deemed to have impliedly repealed section 2 Indeed, it is said that if the new law is inconsistent with or repugnant to the old law, the
presumption against the intent to repeal by implication is overthrown because the
of RA 1405 (which took effect on Sept. 9, 1955), because of the rule that inconsistency or repugnancy reveals an intent to repeal the existing law. And whether a
repeals by implication are not favored. statute, either in its entirety or in part, has been repealed by implication is ultimately a
matter of legislative intent. (Crawford, The Construction of Statutes, Secs. 309-310. Cf.
Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Ass'n v. Feliciano, G.R. No. L-24022, March 3, 1965).
2.  Whether or not a bank can be compelled to disclose the records of
accounts of a depositor who is under investigation for unexplained wealth. 2. Yes. With regard to the claim that disclosure would be contrary to the
policy making bank deposits confidential, it is enough to point out that while
section 2 of RA 1405 declares bank deposits to be “absolutely confidential,”
it nevertheless allows such disclosure in the following instances: (1) Upon
Ruling:
written permission of the depositor; (2) In cases of impeachment; (3) Upon
order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of
1.No. Contrary to their claim that their position effects a reconciliation of the provisions of public officials; (4) In cases where the money deposited is the subject matter
the two laws, plaintiffs are actually making the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 prevail
over those of the Anti-Graft Law, because even without the latter law the balance standing of the litigation. Cases of unexplained wealth are similar to cases of bribery
to the depositor's credit can be considered provided its disclosure is made in any of the or dereliction of duty and no reason is seen why these two classes of cases
cases provided in Republic Act No. 1405. cannot be excepted from the rule making bank deposits confidential. The
policy as to one cannot be different from the policy as to the other. This
The truth is that these laws are so repugnant to each other than no reconciliation is
possible. Thus, while Republic Act No. 1405 provides that bank deposits are "absolutely policy expresses the motion that a public office is a public trust and any
confidential ... and [therefore] may not be examined, inquired or looked into," except in person who enters upon its discharge does so with the full knowledge that
those cases enumerated therein, the Anti-Graft Law directs in mandatory terms that bank
his life, so far as relevant to his duty, is open to public scrutiny.
deposits "shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section,