Before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction

Facts: 

Ombudsman Desierto ordered Lourdes T. Marquez, branch manager of Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, to produce several bank documents for purposes of inspection in camera relative to various accounts maintained at said branch which are involved in a case pending with the Ombudsman entitled "Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau vs Amado Lagdameo, et. al." Marquez filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition and injuction against the Ombudsman, seeking a definite ruling as regards her rights under RA 1405 and the power of OMB to inspect bank deposit under Sec. 15 of RA 6770. She also prayed for a TRO because the Ombudsman and other persons acting under his authority were continuously harassing her to produce the bank documents under threat of being held in indirect contempt. The prayer for TRO was denied by the trial court.

Decision: 

Before an in camera inspection may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case. In the case at bar, there is yet no pending litigation before any court of competent authority. What is existing is an investigation by the office of the Ombudsman. In short, what the Office of the Ombudsman would wish to do is to fish for additional evidence to formally charge Amado Lagdameo, et. al., with the Sandiganbayan. Clearly, there was no pending case in court which would warrant the opening of the bank account for inspection.

Citation: Lourdes T. Marquez vs. Hon. Aniano A. Desierto, G.R. No. 135882, June 27, 2001

Topic: Republic Act No. 1405, Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act