B. KINDS OF DEPOSIT 1.

Demand Deposits

SEC. 58, NCBA - For purposes of this Act, the term "demand deposits" means all those liabilities of the Bangko Sentral and of other banks, which are denominated in Philippine currency and are subject to payment in legal tender upon demand by the presentation of checks. SEC. 59, NCBA - Only banks duly authorized to do so may accept funds or create liabilities payable in pesos upon demand by the presentation of checks, and such operations shall be subject to the control of the Monetary Board in accordance with the powers granted it with respect thereto under this Act. SEC. 60, NCBA - Checks representing demand deposits do not have legal tender power and their acceptance in the payment of debts, both public and private, is at the option of the creditor: Provided, however, That a check which has been cleared and credited to the account of the creditor shall be equivalent to a delivery to the creditor of cash in an amount equal to the amount credited to his account. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORP, 429 SCRA 30 (2004) DOCTRINE: Demand Deposits are all those liabilities of the Bangko Sentral and of other banks which are denominated in the Philippine currency and are subject to payment in legal tender upon demand by the presentation of depositors checks. Under CB Circular No. 22 (Series of 1994), demand deposits shall not be subject to any interest rate ceiling. This, in effect, is an open authority to pay interest on demand deposits, such interest not being subject to any rate ceiling. FACTS FMIC, through its Executive Vice President Antonio Ong, opened a current account and deposited a METROBANK check P100 million with BPI Family Bank* (BPI FB). BPI FB, guaranteed the payment of P14,667,687.01 representing 17% per annum interest of P100 million deposited by FMIC. The latter, in turn, assured BPI FB that it will maintain its deposit of P100 million for a period of one year on condition that the interest of 17% per annum is paid in advance. Subsequently, BPI FB paid FMIC 17% interest or P14,667,687.01 upon clearance of the latters check deposit. However, on August 29, 1989, on the basis of an Authority to Debit signed by Ong and Ma. Theresa David, Senior Manager of FMIC, BPI FB transferred P80 million from FMICs current account to the savings account of Tevesteco Arrastre Stevedoring, Inc. FMIC denied having authorized the transfer of its funds to Tevesteco, claiming that the signatures of Ong and David were falsified. To recover immediately its deposit, FMIC, on September 12, 1989, issued BPI FB check no. 129077 for P86,057,646.72 payable to itself and drawn on its deposit with BPI FB SFDM branch. But upon presentation for payment on September 13, 1989, BPI FB dishonored the check as it was "drawn against insufficient funds" (DAIF). FMIC filed with the RTC a civil case against BPI FB. RTC ruled in favor of FMIC, ordering BPI to pay P80M + interest at legal rate. CA modified amount to P65M + interest at 17% ISSUE Is it a Time Deposit or interest-bearing current account? HELD Time Deposit. The parties did not intend the deposit to be treated as a demand deposit but rather as an interest-earning time deposit not withdrawable any time. Both agreed that the deposit of P100 million was non-withdrawable for one year upon payment in advance of the 17% per annum interest. Ordinarily, a time deposit is defined as "one the payment of which cannot legally be required within such a specified number of days." In contrast, demand deposits are "all those liabilities of the Bangko Sentral and of other banks which are denominated in Philippine currency and are subject to payment in legal tender upon demand by the presentation of (depositors) checks."4 While it may be true that barely one month and seven days from the date of deposit, respondent FMIC demanded the withdrawal of P86,057,646.72 through the issuance of a check payable to itself, the same was made as a result of the fraudulent and unauthorized transfer by petitioner BPI FB of its P80 million deposit to Tevestecos savings account. Certainly, such was a normal reaction of respondent as a depositor to petitioners failure in its fiduciary duty to treat its account with the highest degree of care. Under this circumstance, the withdrawal of deposit by respondent FMIC before the one-year maturity date did not change the nature of its time deposit to one of demand deposit. For UB and KB GBL. Section 33. Acceptance of Demand Deposits. - A bank other than a universal or commercial bank cannot accept or create demand deposits except upon prior approval of, and subject to such conditions and rules as may be prescribed by the Monetary Board. (72-Aa) For TB Sec. 10. Powers of Thrift Banks. In addition to powers granted it by this Act and existing laws, any thrift bank may: (b) Open current or checking accounts: Provided, That the thrift bank has net assets of at least Twenty million pesos (P20,000,000) subject to such guidelines as may be established by the Monetary Board; and shall be allowed to directly clear its demand deposit operations with the Bangko Sentral and the Philippine Clearing House Corporation; For RB/Coop Bank Sec. 12, Rural Banks Act - In addition to the operations especially authorized in this Act, any rural bank may: (b) Open current or checking accounts, provided the rural bank has net assets of at least Five million (P5,000,000) subject to such guidelines as may be established by the Monetary Board: For Islamic Banks Sec. 6 Islamic Banks Powers. The Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines, upon its organization, shall be a body corporate and shall have the power: par. 7 To perform the following banking services; (a) Open Current or checking accounts;

2. 3.

Savings Deposit Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) Accounts

PEOPLE v. REYES, 454 SCRA 635 (2005) DOCTRINE: NOW Accounts are defined as interest-bearing deposit accounts that combine the payable on demand feature of checks and the investment feature of savings accounts. FACTS Aloma Reyes and her daughter Tricha (at large) were convicted for ESTAFA. Private complainant Jules Alabastro bases his complaint on one subject check (for P280,000); each time a check issued by the Reyes's (a total of 5 or 6) bounced, he would return it, and it would be replaced by them with cash, except this last one, which they refused to replace with cash. Complainant claims that the transactions between himself and the Reyes's involved the rediscounting of checks. Defendant claims that she issued the instruments as payment for loans she obtained from Alabastro with respect to her and her daughter's softdrinks business, which eventually went under. She allegedly issued 16 instruments, one for P6k and the rest for P13k, to pay for the (232k) obligation. These would come from a NOW (Negotiable Order of Withdrawal) Account, described as "a savings account where the drawer may issue instrument payable only to a specific payee. A NOW check cannot be issued payable to BEARER. Hence, it cannot be further negotiated. On appeal to the SC, she raises the following issues: 1) whether the nature of a NOW instrument is a "check" within the meaning of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, since the NOW check is drawn against the savings, not the current account, of appellant, and it is payable only to a specific person or the payee and is not valid when made payable to bearer or to cash, and 2) whether her and her daughter's liability should be merely civil, since the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. ISSUE 1) Whether the nature of a NOW instrument is a "check" within the meaning of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, and 2) Whether the Reyes's liability should be merely civil, since the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. RULING 1) NO. Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) Accounts as "interest-bearing deposit accounts that combine the payable on demand feature of checks and the investment feature of savings accounts." The fact that a NOW check shall be payable only to a specific person, and not valid when made payable to BEARER or to CASH or when indorsed by the payee to another person, is inconsequential. The same restriction is produced when a check is crossed: only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his bank account. If a third person accepts a cross check and pays cash for its value despite the warning of the crossing, he cannot be considered in good faith and thus not a holder in due course. The purpose of the crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed by the rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction on the negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are negotiable instruments. 2) YES. Conviction Reversed. A careful examination of the records establishes that appellant issued him the subject check in payment of a preexisting obligation. It puzzles the Court that after the NOW check dated August 31, 1997 bounced on September 3, 1997 for the reason ACCOUNT CLOSED, private complainant would still discount appellants checks in succession. It baffles us more that private complainant would discount a P280,000.00-check in February 1998 despite knowledge of the closure of appellants NOW Account. In the case at bar, private complainant knew that appellant did not only have insufficient funds; he knew her NOW Account was closed at the time he allegedly discounted the subject check. There is no estafa through bouncing checks when it is shown that private complainant knew that the drawer did not have sufficient funds in the bank at the time the check was issued to him. Such knowledge negates the element of deceit and constitutes a defense in estafa through bouncing checks. 4. Time Deposits

BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORP, 429 SCRA 30 (2004) 5. Foreign Currency Deposits

FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT ACT Section 2. Authority to deposit foreign currencies. Any person, natural or juridical, may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, deposit with such Philippine banks in good standing, as may, upon application, be designated by the Central Bank for the purpose, foreign currencies which are acceptable as part of the international reserve, except those which are required by the Central Bank to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered two hundred sixty-five (Now Rep. Act No. 7653). Section 3. Authority of banks to accept foreign currency deposits. The banks designated by the Central Bank under Section two hereof shall have the authority: (1) To accept deposits and to accept foreign currencies in trust Provided, That numbered accounts for recording and servicing of said deposits shall be allowed; (2) To issue certificates to evidence such deposits; (3) To discount said certificates; (4) To accept said deposits as collateral for loans subject to such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Central Bank from time to time; and (5) To pay interest in foreign currency on such deposits.

C. OPENING OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS 1. 2. Know Your Customer Standards Prohibitions

SEC. 9 (A), AMLA: Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping. (a) Customer Identification, - Covered institutions shall establish and record the true identity of its clients based on official documents. They shall maintain a system of verifying the true identity of their clients and, in case of corporate clients, require a system of verifying their legal existence and organizational structure, as well as the authority and identification of all persons purporting to act on their behalf. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, anonymous accounts, accounts under fictitious names, and all other similar accounts shall be absolutely prohibited. Peso and foreign currency non-checking numbered accounts shall be allowed. The BSP may conduct annual testing solely limited to the determination of the existence and true identity of the owners of such accounts. SEC. 3 (1), FDCA: Authority of banks to accept foreign currency deposits. The banks designated by the Central Bank under Section two hereof shall have the authority: (1) To accept deposits and to accept foreign currencies in trust Provided, That numbered accounts for recording and servicing of said deposits shall be allowed. 3. Joint Accounts

ART. 485, NCC: The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. ART. 1207, NCC: The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors in one and the same obligation does not imply that each one of the former has a right to demand, or that each one of the latter is bound to render, entire compliance with the prestation. There is a solidary liability only when the obligation expressly so states, or when the law or the nature of the obligation requires solidarity. ART. 1208, NCC: If from the law, or the nature or the wording of the obligations to which the preceding article refers the contrary does not appear, the credit or debt shall be presumed to be divided into as many shares as there are creditors or debtors, the credits or debts being considered distinct from one another, subject to the Rules of Court governing the multiplicity of suits.

D. SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS INTENGAN v. CA, 377 SCRA 63 (2002) DOCTRINE: Where the accounts in question are US dollar deposits, the applicable law is RA 6426 (FCDA), not RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). Under the applicable law, the only exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits is upon the written permission of the depositor. FACTS In 1993, Citibank filed a complaint for violation of Sec. 31, in relation to Sec. 144 of the Corporation Code against its 2 officers, Santos and Genuino. It was alleged in the affidavit executed by its VP Vic Lim that Santos and Genuino managed or caused existing bank clients/depositors to divert their money from Citibank NA to products offered by other companies (Torrance Development Corporation and Global Pacific Corporation) that were yielding higher interest rates. In return, Santos and Genuino derived substantial financial gains. It was also determined that the bank clients accommodated by Santos and Genuino include Intengan, Neri and Brawner, who have long standing accounts with Citibank NA in savings/dollar deposits and/or in trust accounts and/or money placements. As evidence, Lim annexed bank records, including dollar deposits of Intengan, Neri and Brawner, to establish the deception practiced by Santos and Genuino. In turn, Global Consumer Banking Group of Citibanks VP/Business Manager Reyes admitted to having authorized Lim to state the names of the clients involved and to attach said bank records. Intengan, Neri and Brawner filed their respective motions for the exclusion and physical withdrawal of their bank records, which was initially dismissed by 2nd Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Ubana, Sr. However, Provincial Prosecutor Castro directed the filing of informations against Rajkotwala, Ferguson, Reyes and Lim for alleged violation of the Bank Secrecy Law. On appeal before the DOJ, this was reversed. ISSUE Whether the Bank Secrecy Law, RA 1405 applies in this caseHELD NO. The accounts in question are US dollar deposits. Consequently, the applicable law is RA 6426 known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, and not RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). Under Sec. 8 of RA 6426, there is only a single exception to the secrecy of foreign currency deposits, that is, disclosure is allowed only upon the written permission of the depositor. Incidentally, the acts of the Citibank officials complained of happened before the enactment of RA 9160, Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001. A case for violation of RA 6426 should have been the proper case brought against the banks officials. Lim and Reyes admitted that they had disclosed details of petitioners dollar deposits without the latters written permission. It does not matter if that such disclosure was necessary to establish the banks case against Santos and Genuino. Lims act of disclosing details of petitioners bank records regarding their foreign currency deposits, with the authority of Reyes, would appear to belong to the species. SEC. 8, RA 3019: Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.

PNB v. GANCAYAO, 15 SCRA 91 (1965) DOCTRINE: Sec. 8 of RA 3019 directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. FACTS Prosecutor Gancayao required PNB to produce the records of the bank deposits of Jimenez, the former administrator of the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Administration. Jimenez was under investigation for unexplained wealth. PNB refused to produce the records of the bank deposits for fear of prosecution under RA 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law). Gancayao on the other hand relied on the provisions of RA 3019 (Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), stating Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. xx xx xx Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. ISSUE Whether RA 3019 prevails over RA 1405? RULING YES. Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act prevails over the Bank Secrecy Law. The anti graft law directs in mandatory terms that bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, 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 the Bank Secrecy Law by providing an additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank deposits. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK v. PURISIMA, 161 SCRA 576 (1988) DOCTRINE: By enacting Sec. 8 of RA 3019, Congress intended to provide an additional ground for the examination of bank deposits for without such provision, the prosecutors would be hampered if not altogether frustrated in the prosecution of those charged with having acquired unexplained wealth while in public office. FACTS The Tanodbayan issued a subpoenaduces tecum to the Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, commanding its representative to appear at a specified time at the Office of the Tanodbayan and furnish the latter with duly certified copies of the records in all its branches and extension offices, of the loans, savings and time deposits and other banking transactions, dating back to 1969, appearing in the names of Caturla, his wife, Purita Caturla, their children Manuel, Jr., Marilyn and Michael and/or Pedro Escuyos. Caturla moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum arguing that compliance therewith would result in a violation of Sections 2 and 3 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits. Then Tanodbayan Vicente Ericta not only denied the motion for lack of merit, and directed compliance with the subpoena, but also expanded its scope through a second subpoena duces tecum, this time requiring production by Banco Filipino of the bank records in all its branches and extension offices, of Siargao Agro-Industrial Corporation, Pedro Escuyos or his wife, Emeterio Escuyos, Purita Caturla, Lucia Escuyos or her husband, Romeo Escuyos, Emerson Escuyos, Fraterno Caturla, Amparo Montilla, Cesar Caturla, Manuel Caturla or his children, Manuel Jr., Marilyn and Michael, LTD Pub/Restaurant, and Jose Buo or his wife, Evelyn. Two other subpoena of substantially the same tenor as the second were released by the Tanodbayan's Office. The last required obedience under sanction of contempt. The Banco Filipino Savings & Mortgage Bank, hereafter referred to simply as BF Bank, took over from Caturla in the effort to nullify the subpoenae. It filed a complaint for declaratory relief with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was assigned by raffle to the sala of respondent Judge Fidel Purisima. BF Bank prayed for a judicial declaration as to whether its compliance with the subpoenae duces tecum would constitute an infringement of the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 1405 in relation to Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019. It also asked that pending final resolution of the question, the Tanodbayan be provisionally restrained from exacting compliance with the subpoenae. Respondent Judge Purisima issued an Order denying for lack of merit the application by BF Bank for a preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. It further argues that subpoenae in question are in the nature of "fishing expeditions" or "general warrants" since they authorize indiscriminate inquiry into bank records; that, assuming that such an inquiry is allowed as regards public officials under investigation for a violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act, it is constitutionally impermissible with respect to private individuals or public officials not under investigation on a charge of violating said Act; and that while prosecution of offenses should not, as a rule, be enjoined, there are recognized exceptions to the principle one of which is here present, i.e. to avoid multiplicity of suits, similar subpoenae having been directed to other banks as well. ISSUE Whether the "Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits" precludes production by subpoena duces tecum of bank records of transactions by or in the names of the wife, children and friends of a special agent of the Bureau of Customs, accused before the Tanodbayan of having allegedly acquired property manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income, in violation of the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. RULING The provisions of R.A. No. 1405 subject of BF's declaratory action, read as follows: Sec. 2. 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 litigation. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits The other provision involved in the declaratory action is Section 8 of R.A. No. 3019. It reads: Sec. 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to this salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any prohibition 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 an additional exception to the rule against the disclosure of bank desposits. The inquiry into illegally acquired property or property NOT "legitimately acquired" extends to cases where such property is concealed by being held by or recorded in the name of other persons. This proposition is made clear by R.A. No. 3019 which quite categorically states that the term, "legitimately acquired property of a public officer or employee shall not include .. property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the name of, or held by, respondent's spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives or any other persons. To sustain the petitioner's theory, and restrict the inquiry only to property held by or in the name of the government official or employee, or his spouse and unmarried children is unwarranted in the light of the provisions of the statutes in question, and would make available to persons in government who illegally acquire property an easy and fool-proof means of evading investigation and prosecution; all they would have to do would be to simply place the property in the possession or name of persons other than their spouse and unmarried children. This is an absurdity that we will not ascribe to the lawmakers. SEC. 11, AMLA: 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 involved are in any way related to a money laundering offense: Provided, That this provision shall not apply to deposits and investments made prior to the effectivity of this Act. MARQUEZ v. DESIERTO, 359 SCRA 772 (1991) DOCTRINE: Before an in camera inspection by the Ombudsman 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. FACTS Petitioner is being held in indirect contempt for not allowing in camera inspection of the accounts related to an investigation being done by the Ombudsman relating to payoffs for the PEA-AMARRI scandal. Petitioner hopes to nullify order for the in camera investigation and to hold her in contempt. Petitioner is the branch manager of Union Bank, Julio Vargas Branch. She received an Order from the Respondent to produce several bank documents for inspection in camera relative to a pending investigation before Respondent (Ombudsman Desierto). Respondents case is the Fact Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) vs. Amado Lagdameo relative to the JVA between PEA and AMARI. The Order emphasized Respondents power to issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum and contempt power under RA 6770 aka the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The Act is a later legislation to RA 1405 aka Secrecy of Bank Deposits law; hence amending some provisions of the latter. Orders objective: to trail the managers checks purchased by Trivinio respondent in the pending case) Trivinio purchased 51 managers checks worth P272.1M from Traders Royal Bank, UN Ave. 11 of these checks, P70.6M, were deposited to an account handled by Petitioners branch Though Union Banks lawyer told Petitioner to comply with the Order, she had some difficulty making her ask for some time extensions. She said the accounts cannot be easily identified and despite diligent efforts and from the account numbers presented, she cannot identify these accounts since the checks were issued in cash or bearer o Surmised that the account has been dormant since it is not covered by the new account number generated by the Union Bank system o Hence, she has to verify from the Interbank records archives for the whereabouts of the account After two extensions, Respondent issued the controversial order threatening to hold Petitioner in indirect contempt for causing delays in the investigation. Petitioner and Union Bank filed for declaratory relief in the RTC of Makati to clarify their rights and duties, seeing complying with the Order may conflict or violate the Secrecy of Bank Deposits law. Lower Court Denied the Petition, but Petitioner sought reconsideration. Grounds used by the lower court: No great or irreparable injury to restrain respondent The Ombudsman would have to file to the RTC for the indirect contempt charge Petitioner failed to show prima facie evidence that the subject matter of the investigation is outside the jurisdiction of Respondent. Reconsideration was likewise denied. A motion to cite Petitioner in contempt was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner asserted that such was premature since there was a pending case in the lower court, but eventually she was held in contempt ISSUE (Ombudsman act) whether petitioner may be cited for indirect contempt for her failure to produce the documents requested by the Ombudsman. And whether the order of the Ombudsman to have an in camera inspection of the questioned account is allowed as an exception to the law on secrecy of bank deposits (R. A. No. 1405). RULING NO, she may not be held in contempt or may the Ombudsman have an in camera inspection. Examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law (R. A. No. 1405) would reveal the following exceptions: 1. Where the depositor consents in writing; 2. Impeachment case; 3. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials; 4. Deposit is subject of litigation; 5. Sec. 8, R. A. No. 3019, in cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of PNB vs. Gancayco

The order of the Ombudsman to produce for in camera inspection the subject accounts with the Union Bank of the Philippines, Julia Vargas Branch, is based on a pending investigation at the Office of the Ombudsman against Amado Lagdameo, et. al. for violation of R. A. No. 3019, Sec. 3 (e) and (g) relative to the Joint Venture Agreement between the Public Estates Authority and AMARI. We rule that 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 Union Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, we held that Section 2 of the Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits, as amended, declares bank deposits to be absolutely confidential except: (1) In an examination made in the course of a special or general examination of a bank that is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, (2) In an examination made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, (3) Upon written permission of the depositor, (4) In cases of impeachment, (5) Upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or (6) In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation 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. SALVACION v. CENTRAL BANK, 278 SCRA 27 (1997) DOCTRINE: Sec. 113 of CB Circular No. 960, which exempts from garnishment, attachment or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever foreign currency deposits, is NOT applicable to a foreign transient, but only to foreign lenders and investors to the development of the Foreign Currency Deposit System and Offshore Banking System in the Philippines. FACTS On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old to go with him to his apartment. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion for four days, or up to February 7, 1989 and was able to rape the child. Greg was eventually apprehended but he escaped from detention. The Deputy Sheriff of Makati served a Notice of Garnishment on China Banking Corporation. In a letter dated March 13, 1989 to the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking Corporation invoked Republic Act No. 1405 as its answer to the notice of garnishment served on it. On March 15, 1989, Deputy Sheriff of Makati Armando de Guzman sent his reply to China Banking Corporation saying that the garnishment did not violate the secrecy of bank deposits since the disclosure is merely incidental to a garnishment properly and legally made by virtue of a court order which has placed the subject deposits in custodia legis. In answer to this letter of the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking Corporation, in a letter dated March 20, 1989, invoked Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the effect that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body, whatsoever. After hearing the case ex-parte, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners on March 29, 1990. But China Bank still refuses to garnish the foreign denominated deposits of Greg. ISSUE Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of R.A.6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act be made applicable to a foreign transient? RULING NO. If Karen's sad fate had happened to anybody's own kin, it would be difficult for him to fathom how the incentive for foreign currency deposit could be more important than his child's rights to said award of damages; in this case, the victim's claim for damages from this alien who had the gall to wrong a child of tender years of a country where he is a mere visitor. This further illustrates the flaw in the questioned provisions. It is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at a time when the country's economy was in a shambles; when foreign investments were minimal and presumably, this was the reason why said statute was enacted. But the realities of the present times show that the country has recovered economically; and even if not, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the questioned law may be good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the case before us. Act 3936 (Unclaimed Balances Law), as amended by PD 679, "Sec. 2. Immediately after the taking effect of this Act and within the month of January of every odd year, all banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations shall forward to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement, under oath, of their respective managing officers, of all credits and deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead, or who have not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more, arranged in alphabetical order according to the names of creditors and depositors, and showing: "(a) The names and last known place of residence or post office addresses of the persons in whose favor such unclaimed balances stand; "(b) The amount and the date of the outstanding unclaimed balance and whether the same is in money or in security, and if the latter, the nature of the same; "(c) The date when the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or the date when he made his last deposit or withdrawal; and "(d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if any, and the amount thereof.

"A copy of the above sworn statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of the bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation concerned for at least sixty days from the date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately before filing the above sworn statement, the bank, building and loan association, and trust corporation shall communicate with the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his last known place of residence or post office address. "It shall be the duty of the Treasurer of the Philippines to inform the Solicitor General from time to time the existence of unclaimed balances held by banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations. GBL, Section 54. Prohibition to Act as Insurer. - A bank shall not directly engage in insurance business as the insurer. (73) GBL, Section 55. Prohibited Transactions. 55.1. No director, officer, employee, or agent of any bank shall (a) Make false entries in any bank report or statement or participate in any fraudulent transaction, thereby affecting the financial interest of, or causing damage to, the bank or any person; (b) Without order of a court of competent jurisdiction, disclose to any unauthorized person any information relative to the funds or properties in the custody of the bank belonging to private individuals, corporations, or any other entity: Provided, That with respect to bank deposits, the provisions of existing laws shall prevail; (c) Accept gifts, fees, or commissions or any other form of remuneration in connection with the approval of a loan or other credit accommodation from said bank; (d) Overvalue or aid in overvaluing any security for the purpose of influencing in any way the actions of the bank or any bank; or (e) Outsource inherent banking functions. 55.2. No borrower of a bank shall (a) Fraudulently overvalue property offered as security for a loan or other credit accommodation from the bank; (b) Furnish false or make misrepresentation or suppression of material facts for the purpose of obtaining, renewing, or increasing a loan or other credit accommodation or extending the period thereof; (c) Attempt to defraud the said bank in the event of a court action to recover a loan or other credit accommodation; or (d) Offer any director, officer, employee or agent of a bank any gift, fee, commission, or any other form of compensation in order to influence such persons into approving a loan or other credit accommodation application. 55.3 No examiner, officer or employee of the Bangko Sentral or of any department, bureau, office, branch or agency of the Government that is assigned to supervise, examine, assist or render technical assistance to any bank shall commit any of the acts enumerated in this Section or aid in the commission of the same. (87-Aa) The making of false reports or misrepresentation or suppression of material facts by personnel of the Bangko Sental ng Pilipinas shall be subject to the administrative and criminal sanctions provided under the New Central Bank Act. 55.4. Consistent with the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, otherwise known as the Banks Secrecy Law, no bank shall employ casual or non regular personnel or too lengthy probationary personnel in the conduct of its business involving bank deposits. SEC. 26, NCBA - Any director, officer or stockholder who, together with his related interest, contracts a loan or any form of financial accommodation from: (1) his bank; or (2) from a bank (a) which is a subsidiary of a bank holding company of which both his bank and the lending bank are subsidiaries or (b) in which a controlling proportion of the shares is owned by the same interest that owns a controlling proportion of the shares of his bank, in excess of five percent (5%) of the capital and surplus of the bank, or in the maximum amount permitted by law, whichever is lower, shall be required by the lending bank to waive the secrecy of his deposits of whatever nature in all banks in the Philippines. Any information obtained from an examination of his deposits shall be held strictly confidential and may be used by the examiners only in connection with their supervisory and examination responsibility or by the Bangko Sentral in an appropriate legal action it has initiated involving the deposit account. E. Garnishment SEC. 9 (C), RULE 39 OF RULES OF COURT - Garnishment of debts and credits. - The officer may levy on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the posssession or control of third parties. Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or having in his possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and all lawful fees. The garnishee shall make a written report to the court within five (5) days from service of the notice of garnishment stating whether or not the judgment obligor has sufficient funds or credits to satisfy the amount of the judgment. If not, the report shall state how much funds or credits the garnishee holds for the judgment obligor. The garnished amount in cash, or certified bank check issued in the name of the judgment obligee, shall be delivered directly to the judgment obligee within ten (10) working days from service of notice on said garnishing requiring such delivery, except the lawful fees which shall be paid directly to the court. In the event there are two or more garnishees holding deposits or credits sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the judgment obligor, if available, shall have the right to indicate the garnishee or garnishees who shall be required to deliver the amount due; otherwise, the choice shall be made by the judgment obligee. The executing sheriff shall observe the same procedure under paragraph (a) with respect to delivery of payment to the judgment obligee. SEC. 13, RULE 39 OF RULES OF COURT - Property exempt from execution. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the following property, and no other, shall be exempt from execution: (a) The judgment obligor's family home as provided by law, or the homestead in which he resides, and land necessarily used in connection therewith; (b) Ordinary tools and implements personally used by him in hs trade, employment, or livelihood; (c) Three horses, or three cows, or three carabaos, or other beasts of burden such as the judgment obligor may select necessarily used by him in his ordinary occupation; (d) His necessary clothing and articles for ordinary personal use, excluding jewelry;

(e) Household furniture and utensils necessary for housekeeping, and used for that purpose by the judgment obligor and his family, such as the judgment obligor may select, of a value not exceeding one hundred thousand pesos; (f) Provisions for individual or family use sufficient for four months; (g) The professional libraries and equipment of judges, lawyers, physicians, pharmacists, dentists, engineers, surveyors, clergymen, teachers, and other professionals, not exceeding three hundred thousand pesos in value; (h) One fishing boat and accessories not exceeding the total value of one hundred thousand pesos owned by a fisherman and by the lawful use of which he earns his livelihood; (i) So much of the salaries, wages, or earnings of the judgment obligor of his personal services within the four months preceding the levy as are necessary for the support of his family; (j) Lettered gravestones; (k) Monies benefits, privileges, or annuities accruing or in any manner growing out of any life insurance; (l) The right to receive legal support, or money or property obtained as such support, or any pension or gratuity from the Government; (m) Properties specially exempt by law. But no article or species of property mentioned in his section shall be exempt from executio issued upon a judgment recovered for its price aor upon a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage thereon. Exempt Deposits SEC. 8, FCDA: Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21,1977.) SALVACION v. CENTRAL BANK, 278 SCRA 27 (1997) DOCTRINE: Sec. 113 of CB Circular No. 960, which exempts from garnishment, attachment or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever foreign currency deposits, is NOT applicable to a foreign transient, but only to foreign lenders and investors to the development of the Foreign Currency Deposit System and Offshore Banking System in the Philippines. FACTS On February 4, 1989, Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, coaxed and lured petitioner Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old to go with him to his apartment. Therein, Greg Bartelli detained Karen Salvacion for four days, or up to February 7, 1989 and was able to rape the child. Greg was eventually apprehended but he escaped from detention. The Deputy Sheriff of Makati served a Notice of Garnishment on China Banking Corporation. In a letter dated March 13, 1989 to the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking Corporation invoked Republic Act No. 1405 as its answer to the notice of garnishment served on it. On March 15, 1989, Deputy Sheriff of Makati Armando de Guzman sent his reply to China Banking Corporation saying that the garnishment did not violate the secrecy of bank deposits since the disclosure is merely incidental to a garnishment properly and legally made by virtue of a court order which has placed the subject deposits in custodia legis. In answer to this letter of the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking Corporation, in a letter dated March 20, 1989, invoked Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 to the effect that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body, whatsoever. After hearing the case ex-parte, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners on March 29, 1990. But China Bank still refuses to garnish the foreign denominated deposits of Greg. ISSUE Should Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of R.A.6426, as amended by P.D. 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency Deposit Act be made applicable to a foreign transient? RULING NO. If Karen's sad fate had happened to anybody's own kin, it would be difficult for him to fathom how the incentive for foreign currency deposit could be more important than his child's rights to said award of damages; in this case, the victim's claim for damages from this alien who had the gall to wrong a child of tender years of a country where he is a mere visitor. This further illustrates the flaw in the questioned provisions. It is worth mentioning that R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at a time when the country's economy was in a shambles; when foreign investments were minimal and presumably, this was the reason why said statute was enacted. But the realities of the present times show that the country has recovered economically; and even if not, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive. The intention of the questioned law may be good when enacted. The law failed to anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality such as the case before us. No violation of Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits Cases CHINA BANKING v. ORTEGA, 49 SCRA 356 (1973)

The prohibition against examination of or inquiry into a bank deposit under Republic Act 1405 does not preclude its being garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. Indeed there is no real inquiry in such a case, and if the existence of the deposit is disclosed the disclosure is purely incidental to the execution process. It is hard to conceive that it was ever within the intention of Congress to enable debtors to evade payment of their just debts, even if ordered by the Court, through the expedient of converting their assets into cash and depositing the same in a bank. Liability for Release Cases RCBC v. DE CASTRO. 168 SCRA 49 (1988) FACTS In connection with a civil case between Badoc Planters Inc(BADOC) vs. Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) et al, an action for recovery of unpaid tobacco deliveries, the Judge issued a partial order, directing PVTA to pay plaintiff BADOC. BADOC filed a motion to for a writ of execution, which was granted on the same day. The sheriff then issued a Notice of Garnishment addressed to RCBC asking if PVTA had any proterty in the possession RCBC. to which RCBC replied in the affirmative. PVTA was notified by RCBC of such notice. Later on the Judge issued and order directing RCBC to ""to deliver in check the amount garnished to the Sheriff and the Sheriff in turn is ordered to cash the check and deliver the amount to BADOC". RCBC complied with the order, the check was issued, delivered to the Sheriff, and subsequently encashed. PVTA however filed an MR assailing the execution. The court granted the MR, invalidated the execution, and ordered RCBC and BADOC to jointly and severally restore the account of PVTA. ISSUE Whether RCBC is liable to restore the account of PVTA HELD NO. RCBC merely obeyed a mandatory directive from the respondent Judge, ordering it "to deliver in check the amount garnished to the Sheriff and the Sheriff is in turn ordered to cash the check and deliver the amount to BADOC." As to the allegation by PVTA that RCBC was negligent in prematurely releasing its funds. The court held that the contention by PVTA was without merit since RCBC was expressly ordered by the court to deliver and encash the check. RCBC had already filed a reply to the Notice of Garnishment stating that it had in its custody funds belonging to the PVTA. Also, RCBC promptly notified PVTA of the existence of the Notice of Garnishment. It is important to stress, at this juncture, that there was nothing irregular in the delivery of the funds of PVTA by check to the sheriff, whose custody is equivalent to the custody of the court, he being a court officer. The order of the court was composed of two parts, requiring: 1) RCBC to deliver in check the amount garnished to the designated sheriff and 2) the sheriff in turn to cash the check and deliver the amount to the plaintiffs representative and/or counsel on record. It must be noted that in delivering the garnished amount in check to the sheriff, the RCBC did not thereby make any payment, for the law mandates that delivery of a check does not produce the effect of payment until it has been cashed. [Article 1249, Civil Code.] Moreover, by virtue of the order of garnishment, the same was placed in custodia legis and therefore, from that time on, RCBC was holding the funds subject to the orders of the court a quo. That the sheriff, upon delivery of the check to him by RCBC encashed it and turned over the proceeds thereof to the plaintiff was no longer the concern of RCBC as the responsibility over the garnished funds passed to the court. Thus, no breach of trust or dereliction of duty can be attributed to RCBC in delivering its depositor's funds pursuant to a court order, which was merely in the exercise of its power of control over such funds. The bank had no choice but to comply with the order demanding delivery of the garnished amount in check. The very tenor of the order called for immediate compliance therewith. On the other hand, the bank cannot be held liable for the subsequent encashment of the check as this was upon order of the court in the exercise of its power of control over the funds placed in custodia legis by virtue of the garnishment. F. DEPOSIT INSURANCE 1. Coverage SEC. 5, PDIC CHARTER: The deposit liabilities of any bank or banking institution, which is engaged in the business of receiving deposits as herein defined on the effective date of this Act, or which thereafter may engage in the business of receiving deposits, shall be insured with the Corporation. (As amended by R.A. 6037, 04 August 1969; renumbered from Sec. 4 by R.A. 9302, 12 August 2004) SEC. 9, FCDA: Deposit insurance coverage. The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated. 2. Amount Insured SEC. 4 (G), PDIC CHARTER: The term insured deposit means the amount due to any bona fide depositor for legitimate deposits in an insured bank net of any obligation of the depositor to the insured bank as of the date of closure, but not to exceed Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).2 Such net amount shall be determined according to such regulations as the Board of Directors may prescribe. In determining such amount due to any depositor, there shall be added together all deposits in the bank maintained in the same right and capacity for his benefit either in his own name or in the name of others. A joint account regardless of whether the conjunction "and," "or," "and/or" is used, shall be insured separately from any individually owned deposit account: Provided, That (1) If the account is held jointly by two or more natural persons, or by two or more juridical persons or entities, the maximum insured deposit shall be divided into as many equal shares as there are individuals, juridical persons or entities, unless a different sharing is stipulated in the document of deposit, and (2) if the account is held by a juridical person or entity jointly with one or more natural persons, the maximum insured deposit shall be presumed to belong entirely to such juridical person or entity: Provided, further, That the aggregate of the interest of each co-owner over several joint accounts, whether owned by the same or different combinations of individuals, juridical persons or entities, shall likewise be subject to the maximum insured deposit of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00): Provided, furthermore, That the provisions of any law to the contrary notwithstanding, no owner/holder of any negotiable certificate of deposit shall be recognized as a depositor entitled to the rights provided in this Act unless his name is registered as owner/holder thereof in the books of the issuing bank: Provided, finally, That, in case of a condition that threatens the monetary and financial stability of the banking system that may have systemic consequences, as defined in section 17 hereof, as determined by the Monetary Board, the maximum deposit insurance cover may be adjusted in such amount, for such a period, and/or for such deposit

products, as may be determined by a unanimous vote of the Board of Directors in a meeting called for the purpose and chaired by the Secretary of Finance, subject to the approval of the President of the Philippines. (As amended by R.A. 9302, 12 August 2004; R.A. 9576, 2009) 3. Rules on Payment SEC. 10 (B), PDIC CHARTER: REPEALED ALREADY. For purposes of this Act an insured bank shall be deemed to have been closed on account of insolvency when ordered closed by the Monetary Board of the Central Bank of the Philippines pursuant to Section 29 of R.A. 265, as amended. SEC. 10 (C), PDIC CHARTER: Whenever an insured bank shall have been closed by the Monetary Board pursuant to Section 30 of R.A. 7653, payment of the insured deposits on such closed bank shall be made by the Corporation as soon as possible either (1) by cash or (2) by making available to each depositor a transferred deposit in another insured bank in an amount equal to insured deposit of such depositor: Provided, however, That the Corporation, in its discretion, may require proof of claims to be filed before paying the insured deposits, and that in any case where the Corporation is not satisfied as to the viability of a claim for an insured deposit, it may require final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction before paying such claim: Provided, further, That failure to settle the claim, within six (6) months from the date of filing of claim for insured deposit, where such failure was due to grave abuse of discretion, gross negligence, bad faith, or malice, shall, upon conviction, subject the directors, officers or employees of the Corporation responsible for the delay, to imprisonment from six (6) months to one (1) year: Provided, furthermore, That the period shall not apply if the validity of the claim requires the resolution of issues of facts and or law by another office, body or agency including the case mentioned in the first proviso or by Corporation together with such other office, body or agency." SEC. 10 (D), PDIC CHARTER: The Corporation, upon payment of any depositor as provided for in subsection (c) of this Section3, shall be subrogated to all rights of the depositor against the closed bank to the extent of such payment. Such subrogation shall include the right on the part of the Corporation to receive the same dividends and payments from the proceeds of the assets of such closed bank and recoveries on account of stockholders liability as would have been payable to the depositor on a claim for the insured deposits but, such depositor shall retain his claim for any uninsured portion of his deposit. All payments by the Corporation of insured deposits in closed banks partake of the nature of public funds, and as such, must be considered a preferred credit similar to taxes due to the National Government in the order of preference under Article 2244 of the New Civil Code: Provided, further, That this preference shall be likewise effective upon liquidation proceedings already commenced and pending as of the approval of this Act, where no distribution of assets has been made. (As amended by P.D. 1940, 27 June 1984; R.A. 7400, 13 April 1992; renumbered from Sec. 10(d) by R.A. 9302, 12 August 2004) G. UNCLAIMED BALANCES 1. Definition SEC. 1, UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW (as amended by PD 679): "Unclaimed balances", within the meaning of this Act, shall include credits or deposits of money, bullion, security or other evidence of indebtedness of any kind, and interest thereon with banks, buildings and loan associations, and trust corporations, as hereinafter defined, in favor of any person known to be dead or who has not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more. Such unclaimed balances, together with the increase and proceeds thereof, shall be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines to the credit of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to be used as the National Assembly may direct. "Banks", "building and loan associations" and "trust corporations", within the meaning of this Act, shall refer to institutions defined under Section two, thirty-nine and fifty-six, respectively, of Republic Act Numbered Three Hundred Thirty Seven, otherwise known as the General Banking Act, as amended, whether organized under special charters or not. 2. Report to Treasurer; Notice, Posting, Publication SEC. 2, UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW (as amended by PD 679): Immediately after the taking effect of this Act and within the month of January of every odd year, all banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations shall forward to the Treasurer of the Philippines a statement, under oath, of their respective managing officers, of all credits and deposits held by them in favor of persons known to be dead, or who have not made further deposits or withdrawals during the preceding ten years or more, arranged in alphabetical order according to the names of creditors and depositors, and showing: "(a) The names and last known place of residence or post office addresses of the persons in whose favor such unclaimed balances stand; "(b) The amount and the date of the outstanding unclaimed balance and whether the same is in money or in security, and if the latter, the nature of the same; "(c) The date when the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands died, if known, or the date when he made his last deposit or withdrawal; and "(d) The interest due on such unclaimed balance, if any, and the amount thereof. "A copy of the above sworn statement shall be posted in a conspicuous place in the premises of the bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation concerned for at least sixty days from the date of filing thereof: Provided, That immediately before filing the above sworn statement, the bank, building and loan association, and trust corporation shall communicate with the person in whose favor the unclaimed balance stands at his last known place of residence or post office address. "It shall be the duty of the Treasurer of the Philippines to inform the Solicitor General from time to time the existence of unclaimed balances held by banks, building and loan associations, and trust corporations. 3. Escheat Proceedings SEC. 3, UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW (as amended by PD 679): Whenever the Solicitor General shall be informed of such unclaimed balances, he shall commence an action or actions in the name of the People of the Republic of the Philippines in the Court of First Instance of the province or city where the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation is located, in which shall be joined as parties the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation and all such creditors or depositors. All or any of such creditors or depositors or banks, building and loan association or trust corporations may be included in one action. Service of process in such action or actions shall be made by delivery of a copy of the complaint and summons to the president, cashier, or managing officer of each defendant bank, building and loan association or trust corporation and by publication of a copy of such summons in a newspaper of general circulation, either in English, in Filipino, or in a local dialect, published in the locality where the bank, building and loan association or trust corporation is situated, if there be any, and in case there is none, in the City of Manila, at such time as the court may order. Upon the trial, the court must hear all parties who have appeared therein, and if it be determined that such unclaimed balances in any defendant bank, building and loan association or trust corporation are unclaimed as hereinbefore stated, then the court shall render judgment in favor of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, declaring that said unclaimed balances have escheated to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and commanding said bank, building and loan association or trust corporation to forthwith deposit the same with the Treasurer of the Philippines to credit of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to be used as the National Assembly may direct. "At the time of issuing summons in the action above provided for, the clerk of court shall also issue a notice signed by him, giving the title and number of said action, and referring to the complaint therein, and directed to all persons, other than those named as defendants therein, claiming any interest in any unclaimed balance mentioned in said complaint, and requiring them to appear within sixty days after the publication or first publication, if there are several, of such summons, and show cause, if they have any, why the unclaimed balances involved in said action should not be deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines as in this Act provided and notifying them that if they do

not appear and show cause, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines will apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. A copy of said notice shall be attached to, and published with the copy of, said summons required to be published as above, and at the end of the copy of such notice so published, there shall be a statement of the date of publication, or first publication, if there are several, of said summons and notice. Any person interested may appear in said action and become a party thereto. Upon the publication or the completion of the publication, if there are several, of the summons and notice, and the service of the summons on the defendant banks, building and loan associations or trust corporations, the court shall have full and complete jurisdiction in the Republic of the Philippines over the said unclaimed balances and over the persons having or claiming any interest in the said unclaimed balances, or any of them, and shall have full and complete jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues herein, and render the appropriate judgment thereon. 4. Effects of Compliance/Non-Compliance SEC. 4, UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW (as amended by PD 679): If the president, cashier or managing officer of the bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation neglects or refuses to make and file the sworn statement required by this action, such bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation shall pay to the Government the sum of five hundred pesos a month for each month or fraction thereof during which such default shall continue. SEC. 5, UNCLAIMED BALANCES LAW (as amended by PD 679): Any bank, building and loan association or trust corporation which shall make any deposit with the Treasurer of the Philippines in conformity with the provisions of this Act shall not thereafter be liable to any person for the same and any action which may be brought by any person against in any bank, building and loan association, or trust corporation for unclaimed balances so deposited with the Treasurer of the Philippines shall be defended by the Solicitor General without cost to such bank, building and loan association or trust corporation." H. ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT (RA 9160, as amended by RA 9194, RA 10167 and RA 10365) RA 9160, Section 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and preserve the integrity and confidentiality of bank accounts and to ensure that the Philippines shall not be used as a money laundering site for the proceeds of any unlawful activity. Consistent with its foreign policy, the State shall extend cooperation in transnational investigations and prosecutions of persons involved in money laundering activities whenever committed. RA 9194, SECTION 1. Section 3, paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 9160 is hereby amended as follows: "(b) 'Covered transaction' is a transaction in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. RA 9194, SECTION 2. Section 3 of the same Act is further amended by inserting between paragraphs (b) and (c) a new paragraph designated as (b-1) to read as follows: "(b-1) 'Suspicious transaction' are transactions with covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved, where any of the following circumstances exist: 1. There is no underlying legal or trade obligation, purpose or economic justification; 2. The client is not properly identified; 3. The amount involved is not commensurate with the business or financial capacity of the client; 4. Taking into account all known circumstances, it may be perceived that the client's transaction is structured in order to avoid being the subject of reporting requirements under the Act; 5. Any circumstances relating to the transaction which is observed to deviate from the profile of the client and/or the client's past transactions with the covered institution; 6. The transactions is in a way related to an unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is about to be, is being or has been committed; or 7. Any transactions that is similar or analogous to any of the foregoing." RA 10365, Section 1. Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9160, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: "(a) Covered persons, natural or juridical, refer to: "(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities, foreign exchange dealers, pawnshops, money changers, remittance and transfer companies and other similar entities and all other persons and their subsidiaries and affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP); "(2) insurance companies, pre-need companies and all other persons supervised or regulated by the Insurance Commission (IC); "(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar persons managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant, (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, and other similar persons, and (iii) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); "(4) jewelry dealers in precious metals, who, as a business, trade in precious metals, for transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00); "(5) jewelry dealers in precious stones, who, as a business, trade in precious stones, for transactions in excess of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00); "(6) company service providers which, as a business, provide any of the following services to third parties: (i) acting as a formation agent of juridical persons; (ii) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a director or corporate secretary of a company, a partner of a partnership, or a similar position in relation to other juridical persons; (iii) providing a registered office, business address or accommodation, correspondence or administrative address for a company, a partnership or any other legal person or arrangement; and (iv) acting as (or arranging for another person to act as) a nominee shareholder for another person; and

"(7) persons who provide any of the following services: (i) managing of client money, securities or other assets; (ii) management of bank, savings or securities accounts; (iii) organization of contributions for the creation, operation or management of companies; and (iv) creation, operation or management of juridical persons or arrangements, and buying and selling business entities. "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term covered persons shall exclude lawyers and accountants acting as independent legal professionals in relation to information concerning their clients or where disclosure of information would compromise client confidences or the attorney-client relationship: Provided, That these lawyers and accountants are authorized to practice in the Philippines and shall continue to be subject to the provisions of their respective codes of conduct and/or professional responsibility or any of its amendments." Section 9 (as amended by RA 10365). Prevention of Money Laundering; Customer Identification Requirements and Record Keeping. (a) Customer Identification, - Covered institutions shall establish and record the true identity of its clients based on official documents. They shall maintain a system of verifying the true identity of their clients and, in case of corporate clients, require a system of verifying their legal existence and organizational structure, as well as the authority and identification of all persons purporting to act on their behalf. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, anonymous accounts, accounts under fictitious names, and all other similar accounts shall be absolutely prohibited. Peso and foreign currency non-checking numbered accounts shall be allowed. The BSP may conduct annual testing solely limited to the determination of the existence and true identity of the owners of such accounts. (b) Record Keeping All records of all transactions of covered institutions shall be maintained and safely stored for five (5) years from the date of transactions. With respect to closed accounts, the records on customer identification, account files and business correspondence, shall be preserved and safety stored for at least five (5) years from the dates when they were closed. "(c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious Transactions. Covered persons shall report to the AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions within five (5) working days from occurrence thereof, unless the AMLC prescribes a different period not exceeding fifteen (15) working days. "Lawyers and accountants acting as independent legal professionals are not required to report covered and suspicious transactions if the relevant information was obtained in circumstances where they are subject to professional secrecy or legal professional privilege. When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers, employees, representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or associates shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person the fact that a covered transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the covered institution, shall be criminally liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered transaction report in the regular performance of his duties and in good faith, whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine law. "When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the AMLC, covered persons and their officers and employees are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction has been reported or is about to be reported, the contents of the report, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media", electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the covered person and media shall be held criminally liable." Section 4, RA 10365. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 4. Money Laundering Offense. Money laundering is committed by any person who, knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to the proceeds of any unlawful activity: "(a) transacts said monetary instrument or property; "(b) converts, transfers, disposes of, moves, acquires, possesses or uses said monetary instrument or property; "(c) conceals or disguises the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership of or rights with respect to said monetary instrument or property; "(d) attempts or conspires to commit money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c); "(e) aids, abets, assists in or counsels the commission of the money laundering offenses referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above; and "(f) performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) above. "Money laundering is also committed by any covered person who, knowing that a covered or suspicious transaction is required under this Act to be reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so." Section 2, RA 10365. Section 3(i) of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "(i) Unlawful activity refers to any act or omission or series or combination thereof involving or having direct relation to the following: "(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;

"(3) Section 3 paragraphs B, C, E, G, H and I of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; "(4) Plunder under Republic Act No. 7080, as amended; "(5) Robbery and extortion under Articles 294, 295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No. 1602; "(7) Piracy on the high seas under the Revised Penal Code, as amended and Presidential Decree No. 532; "(8) Qualified theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(9) Swindling under Article 315 and Other Forms of Swindling under Article 316 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(10) Smuggling under Republic Act Nos. 455 and 1937; "(11) Violations of Republic Act No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000; "(12) Hijacking and other violations under Republic Act No. 6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined under the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(13) Terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism as defined and penalized under Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 9372; "(14) Financing of terrorism under Section 4 and offenses punishable under Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Republic Act No. 10168, otherwise known as the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012: "(15) Bribery under Articles 210, 211 and 211-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and Corruption of Public Officers under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(16) Frauds and Illegal Exactions and Transactions under Articles 213, 214, 215 and 216 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(17) Malversation of Public Funds and Property under Articles 217 and 222 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(18) Forgeries and Counterfeiting under Articles 163, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 176 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended; "(19) Violations of Sections 4 to 6 of Republic Act No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003; "(20) Violations of Sections 78 to 79 of Chapter IV, of Presidential Decree No. 705, otherwise known as the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, as amended; "(21) Violations of Sections 86 to 106 of Chapter VI, of Republic Act No. 8550, otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998; "(22) Violations of Sections 101 to 107, and 110 of Republic Act No. 7942, otherwise known as the Philippine Mining Act of 1995; "(23) Violations of Section 27(c), (e), (f), (g) and (i), of Republic Act No. 9147, otherwise known as the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act; "(24) Violation of Section 7(b) of Republic Act No. 9072, otherwise known as the National Caves and Cave Resources Management Protection Act; "(25) Violation of Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of 2002, as amended; "(26) Violations of Sections 1, 3 and 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, otherwise known as the decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives; "(27) Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law; "(28) Violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022; "(29) Violation of Republic Act No. 8293, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines; "(30) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9995, otherwise known as the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009; "(31) Violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9775, otherwise known as the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009; "(32) Violations of Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10(c), (d) and (e), 11, 12 and 14 of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination; "(33) Fraudulent practices and other violations under Republic Act No. 8799, otherwise known as the Securities Regulation Code of 2000; and "(34) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature that are punishable under the penal laws of other countries." Section 5, RA 9160. Jurisdiction of Money Laundering Cases. The regional trial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all cases on money laundering. Those committed by public officers and private persons who are in conspiracy with such public officers shall be under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

Section 5, RA 10365. Section 6(a) of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 6. Prosecution of Money Laundering. "(a) Any person may be charged with and convicted of both the offense of money laundering and the unlawful activity as herein defined. "(b) The prosecution of any offense or violation under this Act shall proceed independently of any proceeding relating to the unlawful activity." Section 16, RA 9160 . Prohibitions Against Political Harassment. This Act shall not be used for political prosecution or harassment or as an instrument to hamper competition in trade and commerce. No case for money laundering may be filed against and no assets shall be frozen, attached or forfeited to the prejudice of a candidate for an electoral office during an election period. RA 10365, Section 8. Section 10 of the same Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10167, is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 10. Freezing of Monetary Instrument or Property. Upon a verified ex parte petition 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) hereof, the Court of Appeals may issue a freeze order which shall be effective immediately, and which shall not exceed six (6) months depending upon the circumstances of the case: Provided, That if there is no case filed against a person whose account has been frozen within the period determined by the court, the freeze order shall be deemed ipso facto lifted: Provided, further, That this new rule shall not apply to pending cases in the courts. In any case, the court should act on the petition to freeze within twenty-four (24) hours from filing of the petition. If the application is filed a day before a nonworking day, the computation of the twenty-four (24)-hour period shall exclude the nonworking days. "A person whose account has been frozen may file a motion to lift the freeze order and the court must resolve this motion before the expiration of the freeze order. "No court shall issue a temporary restraining order or a writ of injunction against any freeze order, except the Supreme Court." RA 9194, SECTION 8. "To ensure compliance with this Act, the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) may inquire into or examine any deposit of 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. SEC. 6, RA 10365. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 7 Creation of Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). The Anti-Money Laundering Council is hereby created and shall be composed of the Governor of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as Chairman, the Commissioner of the Insurance Commission and the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as members. The AMLC shall act unanimously in the discharge of its functions as defined hereunder: "(1) to require and receive covered or suspicious transaction reports from covered institutions; "(2) to issue orders addressed to the appropriate Supervising Authority or the covered institutions to determine the true identity of the owner of any monetary instrument or preperty subject of a covered transaction or suspicious transaction report or request for assistance from a foreign State, or believed by the Council, on the basis fo substantial evidence, to be, in whole or in part, wherever located, representing, involving, or related to directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, the proceeds of an unlawful activitity. "(3) to institute civil forfeiture proceedings and all other remedial proceedings through the Office of th Solicitor General; "(4) to cause the filing of complaints with the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman for the prosecution of money laundering offenses; "(5) to investigate suspicious transactions and covered transactions deemed suspicious after an investigation by AMLC, money laundering activities and other violations of this Act; "(6) to apply before the Court of Appeals, ex parte, for the freezing of any monetary instrument or property alleged to be laundered, proceeds from, or instrumentalities used in or intended for use in any unlawful activity as defined in Section 3(i) hereof; "(7) to implement such measures as may be necessary and justified under this Act to counteract money laundering; "(8) to receive and take action in respect of, any request from foreign states for assistance in their own anti-money laundering operations provided in this Act; "(9) to develop educational programs on the pernicious effects of money laundering, the methods and techniques used in the money laundering, the viable means of preventing money laundering and the effective ways of prosecuting and punishing offenders; "(10) to enlist the assistance of any branch, department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations, in undertaking any and all anti-money laundering operations, which may include the use of its personnel, facilities and resources for the more resolute prevention, detection, and investigation of money laundering offenses and prosecution of offenders; and "(11) to impose administrative sanctions for the violation of laws, rules, regulations, and orders and resolutions issued pursuant thereto." "(12) to require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds to submit to the AMLC, reports on all real estate transactions involving an amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) within fifteen (15) days from the date of registration of the transaction, in a form to be prescribed by the AMLC. The AMLC may also require the Land Registration Authority and all its Registries of Deeds to submit copies of relevant documents of all real estate transactions."

RA 9160, Section 13. Mutual Assistance among States. (a) Request for Assistance from a Foreign State. Where a foreign State makes a request for assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a money laundering offense, the AMLC may execute the request or refuse to execute the same and inform the foreign State of any valid reason for not executing the request or for delaying the execution thereof. The principles of mutuality and reciprocity shall, for this purpose, be at all times recognized. (b) Power of the AMLC to Act on a Request for Assistance from a Foreign State. The AMLC may execute a request for assistance from a foreign State by: (1) tracking down, freezing, restraining and seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful activity under the procedures laid down in this Act; (2) giving information needed by the foreign State within the procedures laid down in this Act; and (3) applying for an order of forfeiture of any monetary instrument or property in the court: Provided, That the court shall not issue such an order unless the application is accompanied by an authenticated copy of the order of a court in the requesting State ordering the forfeiture of said monetary instrument or properly of a person who has been convicted of a money laundering offense in the requesting State, and a certification of an affidavit of a competent officer of the requesting State stating that the conviction and the order of forfeiture are final and then no further appeal lies in respect or either. (c) Obtaining Assistance from Foreign States. The AMLC may make a request to any foreign State for assistance in (1) tracking down, freezing, restraining and seizing assets alleged to be proceeds of any unlawful activity; (2) obtaining information that it needs relating to any covered transaction, money laundering offense or any other matter directly or indirectly, related thereto; (3) to the extent allowed by the law of the Foreign State, applying with the proper court therein for an order to enter any premises belonging to or in the possession or control of, any or all of the persons named in said request, and/or search any or all such persons named therein and/or remove any document, material or object named in said request: Provided, That the documents accompanying the request in support of the application have been duly authenticated in accordance with the applicable law or regulation of the foreign State; and (4) applying for an order of forfeiture of any monetary instrument or property in the proper court in the foreign State: Provided, That the request is accompanied by an authenticated copy of the order of the regional trial court ordering the forfeiture of said monetary instrument or property of a convicted offender and an affidavit of the clerk of court stating that the conviction and the order of forfeiture are final and that no further appeal lies in respect of either. (d) Limitations on Request for Mutual Assistance. The AMLC may refuse to comply with any request for assistance where the action sought by the request contravenes any provision of the Constitution or the execution of a request is likely to prejudice the national interest of the Philippines unless there is a treaty between the Philippines and the requesting State relating to the provision of assistance in relation to money laundering offenses. (e) Requirements for Requests for Mutual Assistance from Foreign State. A request for mutual assistance from a foreign State must (1) confirm that an investigation or prosecution is being conducted in respect of a money launderer named therein or that he has been convicted of any money laundering offense; (2) state the grounds on which any person is being investigated or prosecuted for money laundering or the details of his conviction; (3) gives sufficient particulars as to the identity of said person; (4) give particulars sufficient to identity any covered institution believed to have any information, document, material or object which may be of assistance to the investigation or prosecution; (5) ask from the covered institution concerned any information, document, material or object which may be of assistance to the investigation or prosecution; (6) specify the manner in which and to whom said information, document, material or object detained pursuant to said request, is to be produced; (7) give all the particulars necessary for the issuance by the court in the requested State of the writs, orders or processes needed by the requesting State; and (8) contain such other information as may assist in the execution of the request. (f) Authentication of Documents. For purposes of this Section, a document is authenticated if the same is signed or certified by a judge, magistrate or equivalent officer in or of, the requesting State, and authenticated by the oath or affirmation of a witness or sealed with an official or public seal of a minister, secretary of State, or officer in or of, the government of the requesting State, or of the person administering the government or a department of the requesting territory, protectorate or colony. The certificate of authentication may also be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, consular agent or any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign State in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (g) Extradition. The Philippines shall negotiate for the inclusion of money laundering offenses as herein defined among extraditable offenses in all future treaties. Related Accounts RA0167, Section 2. Section 11 of the same Act is hereby amended to read as follows: "SEC. 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, 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)(1), (2), and (12), which are Punishable under the penal laws of other countries, and terrorism 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 into or examine any deposit 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 Covered 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 III, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby incorporated by reference."

RA 10365, Section 11. New sections are hereby inserted after Section 19 of the same Act, as amended, to read as follows:

"SEC. 20. Non-intervention in the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) Operations. Nothing contained in this Act nor in related antecedent laws or existing agreements shall be construed to allow the AMLC to participate in any manner in the operations of the BIR." "SEC. 21. The authority to inquire into or examine the main account and the related accounts shall comply with the requirements of Article III, Sections 2 and 3 of the 1987 Constitution, which are hereby incorporated by reference. Likewise, the constitutional injunction against ex post facto laws and bills of attainder shall be respected in the implementation of this Act." RULE 68 Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage Types of Foreclosure JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE Section 1. Complaint in action for foreclosure. In an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage or other encumbrance upon real estate, the complaint shall set forth the date and due execution of the mortgage; its assignments, if any; the names and residences of the mortgagor and the mortgagee; a description of the mortgaged property; a statement of the date of the note or other documentary evidence of the obligation secured by the mortgage, the amount claimed to be unpaid thereon; and the names and residences of all persons having or claiming an interest in the property subordinate in right to that of the holder of the mortgage, all of whom shall be made defendants in the action. (1a) Section 2. Judgment on foreclosure for payment or sale. If upon the trial in such action the court shall find the facts set forth in the complaint to be true, it shall ascertain the amount due to the plaintiff upon the mortgage debt or obligation, including interest and other charges as approved by the court, and costs, and shall render judgment for the sum so found due and order that the same be paid to the court or to the judgment obligee within a period of not less than ninety (90) days nor more than one hundred twenty (120) days from the entry of judgment, and that in default of such payment the property shall be sold at public auction to satisfy the judgment. (2a) Section 3. Sale of mortgaged property; effect. When the defendant, after being directed to do so as provided in the next preceding section, fails to pay the amount of the judgment within the period specified therein, the court, upon motion, shall order the property to be sold in the manner and under the provisions of Rule 39 and other regulations governing sales of real estate under execution. Such sale shall not affect the rights of persons holding prior encumbrances upon the property or a part thereof, and when confirmed by an order of the court, also upon motion, it shall operate to divest the rights in the property of all the parties to the action and to vest their rights in the purchaser, subject to such rights of redemption as may be allowed by law. Upon the finality of the order of confirmation or upon the expiration of the period of redemption when allowed by law, the purchaser at the auction sale or last redemptioner, if any, shall be entitled to the possession of the property unless a third party is actually holding the same adversely to the judgment obligor. The said purchaser or last redemptioner may secure a writ of possession, upon motion, from the court which ordered the foreclosure. (3a) Section 4. Disposition of proceeds of sale. The amount realized from the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property shall, after deducting the costs of the sale, be paid to the person foreclosing the mortgage, and when there shall be any balance or residue, after paying off the mortgage debt due, the same shall be paid to junior encumbrancers in the order of their priority, to be ascertained by the court, or if there be no such encumbrancers or there be a balance or residue after payment to them, then to the mortgagor or his duly authorized agent, or to the person entitled to it. (4a) Section 5. How sale to proceed in case the debt is not all due. If the debt for which the mortgage or encumbrance was held is not all due as provided in the judgment as soon as a sufficient portion of the property has been sold to pay the total amount and the costs due, the sale shall terminate; and afterwards as often as more becomes due for principal or interest and other valid charges, the court may, on motion, order more to be sold. But if the property cannot be sold in portions without prejudice to the parties, the whole shall be ordered to be sold in the first instance, and the entire debt and costs shall be paid, if the proceeds of the sale be sufficient therefor, there being a rebate of interest where such rebate is proper. (5a) Section 6. Deficiency judgment. If upon the sale of any real property as provided in the next preceding section there be a balance due to the plaintiff after applying the proceeds of the sale, the court, upon motion, shall render judgment against the defendant for any such balance for which, by the record of the case, he may be personally liable to the plaintiff, upon which execution may issue immediately if the balance is all due at the time of the rendition of the judgment; otherwise; the plaintiff shall be entitled to execution at such time as the balance remaining becomes due under the terms of the original contract, which time shall be stated in the judgment. (6a) Section 7. Registration. A certified copy of the final order of the court confirming the sale shall be registered in the registry of deeds. If no right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall be cancelled, and a new one issued in the name of the purchaser. Where a right of redemption exists, the certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall not be cancelled, but the certificate of sale and the order confirming the sale shall be registered and a brief memorandum thereof made by the registrar of deeds upon the certificate of title. In the event the property is redeemed, the deed of redemption shall be registered with the registry of deeds, and a brief memorandum thereof shall be made by the registrar of deeds on said certificate of title. If the property is not redeemed, the final deed of sale executed by the sheriff in favor of the purchaser at the foreclosure sale shall be registered with the registry of deeds; whereupon the certificate of title in the name of the mortgagor shall be cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the purchaser. (n) Section 8. Applicability of other provisions. The provisions of sections 31, 32 and 34 of Rule 39 shall be applicable to the judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgages under this Rule insofar as the former are not inconsistent with or may serve to supplement the provisions of the latter. (8a) EXTRAJUDICIAL FORECLOSURE ACT NO. 4118 AN ACT TO AMEND ACT NUMBERED THIRTY-ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY-FIVE, ENTITLED AN ACT TO REGULATE THE SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER SPECIAL POWERS INSERTED IN OR ANNEXED TO REAL-ESTATE MORTGAGES. SECTION 1. Section six of Act Numbered Thirty-one hundred and thirty-five, entitled An Act to regulate the sale of property under special powers inserted in or annexed to real-estate mortgages, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6. In all cases in which an extrajudicial sale is made under the special power herein before referred to, the debtor, his successors in interest or any judicial creditor or judgment creditor of said debtor, or any person having a lien on the property subsequent to the mortgage or deed of trust under which the property is sold, may redeem the same at any time within the term of one year from and after the date of the sale; and such redemption shall be governed by the provisions of sections four hundred and sixtyfour to four hundred and sixty-six, inclusive, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as these are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. SECTION 2. The following three sections are hereby inserted after section six of said Act Numbered Thirty-one hundred and thirty-five:

Section 7. In any sale made under the provisions of this Act, the purchaser may petition the Court of First Instance of the province or place where the property or any part thereof is situated, to give him possession thereof during the redemption period, furnishing bond in an amount equivalent to the use of the property for a period of twelve months, to indemnify the debtor in case it be shown that the sale was made without violating the mortgage or without complying with the requirements of this Act. Such petition shall be made under oath and filed in form of an ex parte motion in the registration or cadastral proceedings if the property is registered, or in special proceedings in the case of property registered under the Mortgage Law or under section one hundred and ninety-four of the Administrative Code, or of any other real property encumbered with a mortgage duly registered in the office of any register of deeds in accordance with any existing law, and in each case the clerk of the court shall, upon the filing of such petition, collect the fees specified in paragraph eleven of section one hundred and fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six, as amended by Act Numbered Twenty-eight hundred and sixty-six, and the court shall, upon approval of the bond, order that a writ of possession issue, addressed to the sheriff of the province in which the property is situated, who shall execute said order immediately. Section 8. The debtor may, in the proceedings in which possession was requested, but not later than thirty days after the purchaser was given possession, petition that the sale be set aside and the writ of possession cancelled, specifying the damages suffered by him, because the mortgage was not violated or the sale was not made in accordance with the provisions hereof, and the court shall take cognizance of this petition in accordance with the summary procedure provided for in section one hundred and twelve of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; and if it finds the complaint of the debtor justified, it shall dispose in his favor of all or part of the bond furnished by the person who obtained possession. Either of the parties may appeal from the order of the judge in accordance with section fourteen of Act Numbered Four hundred and ninety-six; but the order of possession shall continue in effect during the pendency of the appeal. Section 9. When the property is redeemed after the purchaser has been given possession, the redeemer shall be entitled to deduct from the price of redemption any rentals that said purchaser may have collected in case the property or any part thereof was rented; if the purchaser occupied the property as his own dwelling, it being town property, or used it gainfully, it being rural property, the redeemer may deduct from the price the interest of one per centum per month provided for in section four hundred and sixty-five of the Code of Civil Procedure. Lazo v Republic Surety and Insurance Co, 31 SCRA 329 (1970) FACTS Jose Robles obtained a loan (12k) from Philippine Bank of Commerce. Republic Surety & Insurance Co (Respondent) acted as the surety/co-debtor for Robles with respect the loan obtained from the bank. On the other hand, lazo spouses (petitioners) are the guarantors of Robles for the surety contract and, in connection therewith, petitioner spouses executed a Real Estate Mortgage over their property in favor of Respondent. Robles defaulted in the payment of the note covering the obligation with the bank. It has been renewed several times until finally, the note was transferred by the bank to Republic Investment. Robles still defaulted in payment, hence, Respondent already paid the obligation. In turn, Respondent foreclosed extra-judicially the REM on July 1, 1958, respondent being the purchaser of the property. The sheriff cert. was issued on Aug. 2 1958. After which, due to the insistence of the petitioners, they started paying rent to respondent and they were able to secure an extension for the redemption of the foreclosed property. Several more extension were sought and granted until 1963 where Jose Robles still reneged in his obligation to redeem the property. The title to the property was consolidated in the name of Respondent via registration of the deed of absolute sale and sheriffs cert. of sale on Mar. 28, 1963. The Petitioner claims that the 1 year legal period of redemption should start to run from Mar. 28, 1963. Since, they filed their action on December of the same year (1968), then their right to redeem has not prescribed. ISSUE Whether the period of redemption already expired? RULING: No it did not expire. The court ruled that the parties had abandoned entirely the concept of legal redemption in this case and converted it into one of conventional redemption, in which the only governing factor was the agreement between them. The registration of the certificate of sale on March 28, 1963 was entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the question of when the period of redemption agreed upon expired. The record shows that the last request for extension approved by the defendant is that contained in the letter of Jose Robles dated May 30, 1960, at the bottom of which appears the handwrittten notation: "Ok for last extension one month. Please attach note of Mr. Lazo," this last evidently referring to the latter's confirmatory letter of May 31, 1960, Consequently, the period to redeem expired on June 30, 1960. The plaintiffs' repeated requests for time within which to redeem, each with a definite date of expiration, generated binding contracts when approved by the defendant company. A contract, needles to say, has the force of law between the parties. In any event, the principle of estoppel would step in to prevent the plaintiffs from going back upon their own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. This is a principle of equity and natural justice, expressly adopted in our Civil Code and in Rule 31 of the Rules of Court. Ibaan Rural Bank v CA, 321 SCRA 88 (1999) FACTS The spouses Reyes were owners of 3 lots covered by 3 TCTs. The spouses mortaged these lots to Ibaan Rural Bank, Inc. The spouses Reyes, as sellers, and the spouses Tarnate (private respondents) entered into a Deed of Absolute Sale with Assumption of Mortgage of the lots. Respondents failed to pay the assumed loan so Ibaan Rural Bank foreclosed on the property extra-judicially. The provincial Sheriff conducted a public auction of the lots and awarded the lots to the bank, the sole bidder. The certificate of sale stated that the redemption period expires in 2 years from the registration of the sale. No notice of extrajudicial foreclosure was given to the private respondents. Private respondents then tried to redeem the properties and tendered payment. However, the bank refused the redemption on the ground that it had consolidated its tiles over the lot. Respondents then filed a complaint asking the foreclosure to be held void because there was no notice and that they were entitled to redeem the lots because they tendered payment for redemption before the 2-year period for redemption expired. TC ruled in favour of the private respondents.

ISSUE Was there proper redemption despite the expiration of the 1 year right of redemption? Was the 2-year redemption period unilaterally made by the sheriff valid despite neither party agreeing to such?

HELD Yes, there was a proper redemption by the respondents. When petitioner received a copy of the certificate of sale registered at the RD, it had actual and constructive knowledge of the certificate and its contents. For two years it did not object to the two-year extension of the redemption period. Thus it could be said that the petitioner consented to the two-year redemption period especially since It had time to object to it and did not. When circumstances imply a duty to speak on the part of a person for whom an obligation is proposed, his silence can be construed as consent. By its silence and inaction, petitioner misled private respondent to believe that they had two years within which to redeem the mortgage. After the lapose of two years, petitioner is esopped from asserting that the period for redemption was only one year and that the period had already lapsed. Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations or admissions, or by his own silence when he out to speak out, intentionally or though culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to exist and Such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts. The CA in affirming decision of the TC relied on Lazo vs Republic surety, which stated that the one year period of redemption provided in act no.3135 is only directory and can be extended by agreement of the parties. This is not so in the instant case. There was no voluntary agreement. The sheriff unilaterally and arbitrarily extended the period of redemption to two years in the certificate of sale. The parties were not privy to the extension made by the sheriff. Nonetheless, as above discussed, the bank can not after the lapse of two years insist that the redemption period was one year only. The rule on redemption is liberally interpreted in favor of the original owner of the property. Such interpretation will be as loose as the morals of Alex as proven by his many homosexual advances on men. (iv) Tolling of Redemption Period Sumerariz v DBP, 21 SCRA 1374 (1967) FACTS Plaintiffs Spouses Sumerariz constituted in favour of Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, now Development Bank of the Philippines, an REM on two parcels of land in San Andres Subdivision, Manila with TCTs in the couples name to guarantee a loan for 15K. Plaintiffs did not pay for the loan so DBP foreclosed. After several postponements of the public auction on plaintiffs request, sale was set for march 29, 1955. Upon the behest of Juan sumerariz, made the day before, the bank agreed to postpone the sale if there was a token payment of at least 100 before 9am the next day. No such payment was made so the bank bought the property on march 29 for 8k as the highest bidder. Bank notified plaintiffs they had one year to redeem the property or note later than march 29, 1956 upon down payment of P2806, the balance payable in ten years at the rate of 166 per month. Instead of exercising redemption, on march 26, 1956 plaintiffs filed a case against the bank and sheriff of manila to set aside the foreclosure sale on the ground that the bank failed to comply with its agreement to postpone the auction sale scheduled to be held on march 29, 1956. In July 1956 the bank sold the property to Philippine Surety and Insurance Co. In 1958 the case of the Sumerariz was dismissed because the plaintiffs had not redeemed the property within the period prescribed by law therefore the bank has thereby become its absolute owner. The couple lost all the way to the SC hence the present case against the bank and the Surety Co to annul the sale made to the latter by the bank and to be allowed to redeem the property in question. Defendants plead res judicata and prescription and set a counterclaim for rentals plus attorneys fees. Court dismissed the case and demanded plaintiffs to vacate the property and to pay 100 a month to the bank from march 30 1060 until property is vacated. Plaintiffs appealed to the CA, which the CA then certified to the SC on questions of law. ISSUE Whether or not the plaintiffs had a right to redeem the property still? (whether or not the filing of a case to annul foreclosure suspends the period for redemption? HELD NO, it does not suspend the period. There is no statue or decision that supports the plaintiffs contention that the period of one year to redeem land sold at a sheriffs sale was suspended by the institution of an action to annul the foreclosure sale. Moreover, up to now, plaintiffs have not exercised the right to redemption. Indeed, although they have intimated their wish to redeem the property in question, they have not deposited the amount necessary therefore. As to res judicata, although not a party in the first case, the inclusion of the surety co as a defendant in the case at bar does not detract from the legal identity of both cases because by buying the property subject matter of both cases from the bank, the sure co became merely the banks successor in interest. Neither does the absence of the sheriff in the first case negate the identiy inasmuch as the sheriff was but a formal party in said previous case and is virtually a party in the present case although not mentioned explicitly as such therein.

Peoples Financing Corp v CA, 192 SCRA 34 (1990) FACTS Kalmar Construction and Muning Exploration Co. purchased several pieces of heavy equipment from J.P. Enterprises for the total amount of P787,000. The buyer paid 30% (P237,000) of the price and 18 paid monthly instalments for the rest (P550,000). Additional charges were stated therein in cases where there is overdue instalments/amount. A promissory note and a chattel mortgage were signed by the officers, including the respondents herein, of Kalmar to secure the amount unpaid by the latter. On the same date, the seller assigned the promissory note and the chattel to Peoples Financing Corporation. Respondent Manliguez and his wife executed a real estate mortgage on one of the parcel of land owned by them as additional security for the existing obligation (re: promissory note). Thereafter, the petitioners caused the foreclosure of this mortgage for nonpayment of the promissory note. Petitioner PFC was the highest bidder and was registered accordingly. The private respondents moved to annul the foreclosure and sure for damages. The lower court issued an injunction of the registration of Final Deed of Sale and ruled in favor of the complainants granting them 1) P191,906.00 worth of additional charges to be returned by the petitioners for not properly informing the private respondents of such charges, 2) right to redeem the mortgaged property. On the matter of right of redemption. The lower court ruled that the one-year period of redemption has never commenced because the issuance of the Final Deed of Sale set for by the Sheriff was stopped by the trial court. On registered lands, the one-year period of redemption starts not from the date of the sale but from the date when the certificate of sale issued by the sheriff is registered in the office of the register of deeds.

ISSUE (Relevant to topic) Whether the right to redemption was properly granted? RULING NO. The certificate of sale was duly registered by the petitioners in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Mandaue City. From thereon, the one-year redemption began. Since the private respondents did not exercise their right of redemption from the said time, the consequence is that ownership was legally consolidated in PFC, which had a right to the issuance of a new certificate of title in its name. The one-year period to redeem a mortgage of land covered by Torrens Title is not stopped or suspended by any TRO issued by the courts. An experienced businessman cannot claim that he and his wife did not know of the total finance charges for he was one of the signatories to the promissory note. Consolidated Bank v IAC, 150 SCRA 591 (1987) FACTS Originally, petitioned Solidbank loaned private respondent NICOS sums of money. NICOS failed to pay back the loan prompting Solidbank to file a collection case. Pursuant to the writ of attachment issued by the Court and upon petitioners posting of sufficient bond, the Sheriff of Manila levied and attached the two real properties described by the foregoing order of attachment. Pursuant to the foregoing inscription and annotations, guards were deputized by the Manila Sheriff to secure the premises of the two attached realties. A year later, however, the attached properties which had been mortgaged by NICOS to the UCPB were extra-judicially foreclosed by the latter. As the highest bidder, a certificate of sale was issued to it over the subject realties including the buildings and improvements. Two transactions occurred thereafter: (1) UCPB sold all of its rights, interests and participation over the properties to a certain Manuel Go (2) Manuel Go sold all the rights he acquired from the UCPB over the same lots on that very same day to private respondent GOLDEN STAR. Barely a month later, respondent NICOS suddenly executed a document entitled Waiver of Right of Redemption in favor of respondent GOLDEN STAR, which then filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession over the subject realties before the RTC. It was granted. Petitioner Solidbank filed an omnibus motion to annul the writ of possession issued to GOLDEN STAR and to punish for contempt of court the persons who implemented the writ of possession with the use of force and intimidation. Petitioner interposed an appeal before the Intermediate Appellate Court arguing inter alia that the properties were under custodia legis, hence the extra-judicial foreclosure and the writ of possession were null and void, and that the right of NICOS to redeem the auctioned properties had been acquired by Solidbank. The Intermediate Appellate Court found no merit to this appeal. Hence the petition for review, on the grounds that appellate court decided the case contrary to law and applicable decisions of the SC. ISSUE Whether the subject properties were under custodia legis by virtue of the prior annotation of a writ of attachment in petitioners favor at the time the properties were extrajudicially foreclosed? RULING YES. The disputed real properties were under custodia legis by virtue of avalid attachment at the time the same were extrajudicially foreclosed by a third party mortgagee. The rule is well settled that when a writ of attachment has been levied on real property or any interest therein belonging to the judgment debtor, the levy thus effected creates a lien which nothing can destroy but its dissolution. (1) It follows that the writ of possession issued by the Malolos court in favour of respondent GOLDEN STAR is null and void because it interfered with the jurisdiction of a coordinate and co-equal court. (2) The transactions on which respondent GOLDEN STARs right to a writ of possession are based are highly irregular and questionable. The attempts to bring the disputed properties out of the petitioners reach inspite of the attachment, are plain and apparent. They conspired to defeat petitioners lien on the attached properties and to deny the latter its right of redemption. In issuing the writ of possession, the Malolos court relied on copies of documents submitted to it by GOLDEN STAR. It was thus led into the error of ruling that the petitioners attachment was not properly annotated. It likewise follows that the petitioner (the attaching creditor) has acquired by operation of law the right of redemption over the foreclosed properties. It has been held that an attaching creditor may succeed to the incidental rights to which the debtor was entitled by reason of his ownership of the property, as for example, a right to redeem from a prior mortgage. The fact that respondent NICOS executed a waiver of right of redemption in favour of respondent GOLDEN STAR is of no moment as by that time it had no more right which it may waive in favor of another. (Relevant to topic starts here) GOLDEN STAR argues that even if the attachment in issue was duly registered and the petitioner has a right of redemption, the certificate of sale of the lands in question was registered on September 6, 1983. It claims that the period to redeem therefore lapsed on September 6, 1984 without the petitioner bank ever exercising any right to redemption. Well settled is the rule that the pendency of an action tolls the term of the right of redemption. In the case at bar, the petitioner commenced the instanct action by way of an omnibus motion before the Bulacan Court on November 21, 2983 or barely two months after the certificate of sale was registered on September 6, 1983, well within the one year period. CMS Stock Brokerage v CA, 275 SCRA 790 (1997) FACTS Petitioner, as judgment debtor, seeks to redeem two parcels of land sold on execution none years earlier upon the contention that the pendency of an action involving the ownership thereof suspended the 12-month period of redemption provided by the present Rules. The deputy sheriff refused to execute a deed of redemption. Petitioner went to the RTC. Respondent Judge Buenaventura thereafter ruled against petitioner on the ground that the right of redemption had long expired. Dissatisfied with this ruling which sustained the deputy sheriff's action, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus, with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction with respondent CA. The appellate court dismissed the petition hence the instant petition for review on certiorari. The SC declared petitioner as the real owner of the subject parcel of land and not Rosario S. Sandejas who initiated the proceedings for "quieting of ownership of real property, injunction and damages". Petitioner filed a notice to redeem and tendered the redemption money. Petitioner also paid an additional sum as Sheriff's Commission. Respondents Sheriffs informed petitioner that they cannot execute and issue the certificate of redemption because of the absence a court order directing them to do so, and they informed the latter that they accepted the tendered amounts for safekeeping.

Petitioner filed a "Motion to require Sheriff to Execute Certificate of Redemption". Respondent Judge issued the challenged order denying petitioner's motion requiring the Sheriff to execute a certificate of redemption. A motion for reconsideration was denied by respondent Judge. ISSUE 1) Whether petitioner could have effected the redemption of the subject property within the 12-month period provided under the Rules; and (Relevant topic) 2) Whether petitioner's period to redeem is tolled by an action to quiet title filed by a third-party claimant questioning the ownership of the property sold on execution? RULING (1) It is petitioner's contention that it could not have exercised the right of redemption before the lapse of the 12-month redemption period because its title at the time was clouded by the claim of a third party, Rosario Sandejas. The CA rejected this contention principally because under the established factual circumstances, petitioner considered itself to be the owner of the subject property despite the alleged pending case for quieting of title. The petitioner's reliance on the supposed cloud or uncertainty in its ownership for not effecting redemption within the 12-month redemption period is misplaced. The real property sold on execution may be redeemed by the judgment debtor (CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc.) or his successors in interest, in the whole or any part of the property. The exercise of this right of redemption by the judgment debtor is not conditioned upon ownership of the property sold on execution but by virtue of a writ of execution directed against such judgment debtor. In instances when a piece of property is claimed by a third person, as in the case at hand When, however, property is levied upon and sold, despite a claim by a third person who must vindicate then his claim in a proper action, Section 29 determines who shall have a right of redemption. Clearly, the right of redemption is given to the judgment debtor and not to any third-party claimant. The judgment debt or obligation and not ownership is the main consideration in granting the judgment debtor the right to redeem. Petitioner's supposition that unquestioned ownership of the subject property is a requisite for its exercise of the right of redemption in this case has no legal basis. Petitioner could have effected its right of redemption had it wanted to within the 12-month redemption period provided under the Rules. This is the law and ignorance thereof is no excuse for petitioner's failure to exercise such right. (2) NO. As already pointed out, the issue of ownership insofar as petitioners right of redemption as judgement debtor is concerned, has no bearing whatsoever, so as have the effect of tolling or interrupting the running o running of the 12-month redemption period. If at all, as pointed out by respondent CA, the condition imposed after the execution sale relating to the pending action for quieting of title, may only benefit the third-party claimant, Rosario Sandejas, that is should her claim prosper, only then may the execution sale be declared null and void. But with respect to petitioner's right of redemption as judgment debtor this condition is of no moment. REDEMPTION PRICE Union Bank v CA, 359 SCRA 480 (2001) FACTS Spouses Vincoy obtained a loan from Union Bank in the amount of P2M, which they secured with a mortgage over their residence. For failure to pay on its maturity date, Union Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and it became the highest bidder in the scheduled auction for P3.29K. Before the expiration of the redemption period, Spouses Vincoy, together with Gregorio sisters, filed a complaint for annulment of mortgage, alleging that the property had been constituted as a family home as early as 1989 and that the Gregorio sisters did not consent to the mortgage. RTC declared that the constitution of the family home is void because its actual value exceeded P300K and that the mortgage in favor of Union Bank valid. It also ordered Spouses Vincoy to pay their O/S balance to Union bank in the amount of P4.8M. CA sustained the finding of RTC as to the issue of the family home, but found that the proper redemption price should be P3.29M, which is the purchase price at the foreclosure sale plus 1% monthly interest pursuant to Rule 39 of the RoC. ISSUE Whether the redemption price set by the Court of Appeals is proper RULING NO. Section 78 of GBL governs the determination of the redemption price of the subject property. The Court has settled that the amount at which the foreclosed property is redeemable is the amount due under the mortgage deed, or the O/S obligation of the mortgagor plus interests and expenses in accordance with Sec. 78, GBL. It was therefore erroneous for the CA to apply Rule 39 of the RoC in determining the redemption price in this case. DBP v West Negros College, 391 SCRA 330 (2002) FACTS Bacolod Medical Center (BMC) obtained a loan worth P2.4M from DBP, secured by a mortgage on 2 parcels of land, hospital building and medical equipment. For failure to pay, DBP extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage under Act No 3135. At the public auction, DBP emerged as the highest bidder for P4.09M. The O/S balance of BMC with DBP as of the date of public auction amounted to P32.5M. Before the expiration of the redemption period, BMC and DBP Bacolod agreed to peg the redemption price at P21.5M, as a compromise settlement of the O/S account-subject to approval of DBP Head Office. During the process of paying the 20% installment agreed upon, BMC executed a Deed of Assignment to West Negros College, assigning to the latter the interests of BMC in the properties foreclosed, as well as the right to redeem them. West Negros demanded that the redemption price be reduced for excessive interest charges. Thereafter, DBP Head Office REJECTED the compromise amount of P21.5M saying that the re-appraised value of the properties is P28.9M as of May1991. West Negros College requested the issuance of the certificate of redemption after it had paid DBP P4.3M as 1% monthly interest. Its computation was based on Rule 39 of the RoC and Act 3135, while that of DBP's was based on its charter requiring payment of the amount owed as of the date of the foreclosure sale. Pursuant to this, DBP refused to hand over the TCTs of the foreclosed properties. However, West Negros was vested with possession of the properties.

West Negros filed a petition with the RTC for the surrender of the TCTs (or the issuance of new ones) alleging full payment of the redemption price under Rule 39 of RoC and Act No 3135--the amount of purchase with 1% monthly interest + expenses at the sale. DBP, on the other hand, contends that the proper redemption price is based on the total outstanding loan as of the date of the foreclosure sale, plus interests and expenses. RTC ruled in favor of West Negros, which the CA sustained. ISSUE What is the proper redemption price? RULING TOTAL OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS OF THE DATE OF FORECLOSURE SALE. It has long been settled that where real property is mortgaged to and foreclosed judicially or extrajudicially by DBP, the right of redemption may only be exercised by paying all the amount owed on the date of the sale, with interest on the total indebtedness at the rate agreed upon, unless the bidder has taken material possession of the property or unless it has been delivered to him, in which case, the proceeds of the property shall compensate the interest. This is applied whether the foreclosed property is sold to DBP or to another person at the public auction, provided that the property was mortgaged to DBP. Where property is sold to persons other than the mortgagee, the procedure is for DBP to return to the bidder the amount it received from him as a result of the auction sale with interest. This rule is embodied in the charters of DBP and its predecessor agencies. CA 459 (Agricultural and Industrial Bank) set the redemption price at the total indebtedness plus interest as of the date of the auction sale. Several cases had settled that CA 459, NOT Rule 39 of RoC, is applicable in case of redemption of real estate mortgaged to DBP to secure a loan. As such, the redemption price to be paid by the mortgagor to DBP is all amount he owes on the date of the sale, with interest on the total indebtedness, and NOT merely the amount paid for by the purchaser in the public auction. POSSESSION SEC. 47 (1), GBL: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. In the event of foreclosure, whether judicially or extrajudicially, of any mortgage on real estate which is security for any loan or other credit accommodation granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold for the full or partial payment of his obligation shall have the right within one year after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with interest thereon at rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs and expenses incurred by the bank or institution from the sale and custody of said property less the income derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at the auction sale concerned whether in a judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of such property immediately after the date of the confirmation of the auction sale and administer the same in accordance with law. Any petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure proceeding. Samson v Rivera FACTS Spouses Samson obtained a loan amounting to P55M from Far East Bank, which they secured with 2 REMs covering 5 parcels of commercial property in Antipolo, Rizal. Due to their failure to pay, FEBTC filed an Application for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure of REM. FEBTC and Lenjul Realty were the 2 bidders in the 2nd auction (1st auction was postponed because there was only 1 bidder then), with the latter declared as the highest bidder in the amount of P80M. Thereafter, Lenjul Realty filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession, which the Spouses Samson opposed. Pending the Petition, Spouses Samson filed an action for Annulment of EJ Foreclosure and/or Nullification of the Sale against Lenjul Realty, FEBTC, BPI, the clerk of court and the RD of Antipolo City. Judge Rivera gave due course to the Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession and denied the opposition. Pursuant to this, a Writ of Possession was issued directing the sheriff to place Lenjul Realty in physical possession of the foreclosed properties. On the same date, the sheriff issued a Notice to Vacate to Rempson Corp (owned by Samson spouses). Spouses Samson then filed with the CA a SCA for Certiorari with Prohibition/Mandamus under Rule 65 to annul orders of Judge Rivera. CA ruled that certiorari was improper and premature and that there was an adequate remedy available--to file a petition to set aside the foreclosure sale and to cancel the writ of possession. ISSUE 1. Whether RTC committed GADLEJ in granting Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession 2. Whether Petition for Certiorari was the proper remedy HELD 1. NO. The issuance of the Writ is explicitly authorized by Act No. 3135, which regulates the methods of effecting an EJ Foreclosure of Mortgage. Under Sec. 7 of Act No. 3135, the purchaser in a foreclosure sale may apply for a writ of possession during the redemption period by filing for that purpose an ex parte motion under oath. Upon the filing of such motion and the approval of the corresponding bond, the court is expressly directed to issue the writ. The duty of the RTC to grant a writ of possession is ministerial. Such writ issues as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and the approval of the corresponding bond. 2. NO. SCA for Certitorari could be availed of only if RTC acted with GADLEJ and if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. There is grave abuse when the court acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner equivalent to acting with lack of jurisdiction. In this case, there was no GADLEJ since the RTC only issued the Writ in compliance with Act No. 3135. Since there was no GADLEJ, Spouses Samson should have filed an ordinary appeal instead of a petition for certiorari.

INJUNCTION AND BOND SEC. 47 (1), GBL: Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage. In the event of foreclosure, whether judicially or extrajudicially, of any mortgage on real estate which is securityfor any loan or other credit accommodation granted, the mortgagor or debtor whose real property has been sold for the full or partial payment of his obligation shall have the right within one year after the sale of the real estate, to redeem the property by paying the amount due under the mortgage deed, with interest thereon at rate specified in the mortgage, and all the costs and expenses incurred by the bank or institution from the sale and custody of said property less the income derived therefrom. However, the purchaser at the auction sale concerned whether in a judicial or extra-judicial foreclosure shall have the right to enter upon and take possession of such property immediately after the date of the confirmation of the auction sale and administer the same in accordance with law. Any petition in court to enjoin or restrain the conduct of foreclosure proceedings instituted pursuant to this provision shall be given due course only upon the filing by the petitioner of a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all the damages which the bank may suffer by the enjoining or the restraint of the foreclosure proceeding. OTHER BANK FUNCTIONS Sec. 29, GBL: Powers of a Commercial Bank. - A commercial bank shall have, in addition to the general powers incident to corporations, all such powers as may be necessary to carry on the business of commercial banking such as accepting drafts and issuing letters of credit; discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt; accepting or creating demand deposits; receiving other types of deposits and deposit substitutes; buying and selling foreign exchange and gold or silver bullion; acquiring marketable bonds and other debt securities; and extending credit, subject to such rules as the Monetary Board may promulgate. These rules may include the determination of bonds and other debt securities eligible for investment, the maturities and aggregate amount of such investment. Sec. 4, GBL: The Bangko Sentral shall also have supervision over the operations of and exercise regulatory powers over quasi-banks, trust entities and other financial institutions which under special laws are subject to Bangko Sentral supervision. For the purposes of this Act, quasi-banks shall refer to entities engaged in the borrowing of funds through the issuance, endorsement or assignment with recourse or acceptance of deposit substitutes as defined in Section 95 of Republic Act No. 7653 (hereafter the New Central Bank Act) for purposes of re-lending or purchasing of receivables and other obligations. Sec. 95, NCBA: The term "deposit substitutes" is defined as an alternative form of obtaining funds from the public, other than deposits, through the issuance, endorsement, or acceptance of debt instruments for the borrower's own account, for the purpose of relending or purchasing of receivables and other obligations. These instruments may include, but need not be limited to, bankers acceptances, promissory notes, participations, certificates of assignment and similar instruments with recourse, and repurchase agreements. The Monetary Board shall determine what specific instruments shall be considered as deposit substitutes for the purposes of Section 94 of this Act: Provided, however, That deposit substitutes of commercial, industrial and other non-financial companies for the limited purpose of financing their own needs or the needs of their agents or dealers shall not be covered by the provisions of Section 94 of this Act. ISSUING L/CS Sec. 105, NCBA: Margin Requirements Against Letters of Credit. The Monetary Board may at any time prescribe minimum cash margins for the opening of letters of credit, and may relate the size of the required margin to the nature of the transaction to be financed. Bank of America, NT & SA v. Court of Appeals, 228 SCRA 357 (1993) FACTS Bank of America received an irrevocable letter of credit purportedly issued by Bank of Ayudhua to cover the sale of plastic ropes and agricultural files between General Chemicals Ltd of Thailand (Buyer) and Inter-Resin Industrial Corporation of Philippines (Seller). Inter-Resin tried to have the letter of credit confirmed. However, the Bank of America said that there was no need for confirmation, as the letter of credit would not have been transmitted if it were not genuine. Afterwards, Inter-Resin sought to make partial availment under the letter of credit from Bank of America, its advising bank. Assured by the genuineness of letter of credit, Bank of America, issued a Cashiers check amounting to 10M in favor of Inter-Resin. Again, Inter-Resin sought for another availment under the same letter of credit. However, the Bank of Ayudhua informed the Bank of America that the letter of credit was fraudulent. After investigation of the NBI, the officers of Inter-resin was charged with estafa but their cases were dismissed due to lack of prima facie evidence. Now, Bank of America files a case against Inter-Resin for the recovery of 10M it issued under the fraudulent letter of credit. The TC ruled in favor of Inter-Resin, stating that the Bank of America lead Inter-Resin to believe the letter of credit was genuine. The CA affirmed the decision. ISSUE W/N the Bank of America is a mere advising/notifying bank or a confirming bank. RULING The Bank is only an advising bank, based on the provisions of the letter of credit, the banks letter of advice and request for payment of advising fee. The fact that the Bank asked Inter-Resin to submit documents and paid the proceeds did not make it a confirming bank. the Banks letter clearly limited its obligation only to being an advising bank. As an advising/notifying bank, it did not incur any obligation other than just notifying Inter-Resin of the issuance of the letter of credit. The statement of one of the bank employees regarding the genuineness of the letter of credit did not have an effect of novating the position of the bank as an advising bank. in addition, the Bank is bound only to check the apparent authenticity of the letter of credit, which it did. Thus, the Bank of America can recover what it has paid to Inter-Resin, under the discounting agreement with the bank being a negotiating bank. With this agreement, the bank independently assumed the obligation under the letter of credit, with right of recourse against the bank of Ayudha, saving Inter-Resin the trouble of traveling to Thailand. Definition A letter of credit is a financial device developed by merchants as a convenient and relatively safe mode of dealing with sales of goods to satisfy the seemingly irreconcilable interests of a seller, who refuses to part with his goods before he is paid, and a buyer, who wants to have control of the goods before paying. To break the impasse, the buyer may be required to contract a bank to issue a letter of credit in favor of the seller so that, by virtue of the latter of credit, the issuing bank can authorize the seller to draw drafts and engage to pay them upon their presentment simultaneously with the tender of documents required by the letter of credit. The buyer and the seller agree on what documents are to be presented for payment, but ordinarily they are documents of title evidencing or attesting to the shipment of the goods to the buyer.

Once the credit is established, the seller ships the goods to the buyer and in the process secures the required shipping documents or documents of title. To get paid, the seller executes a draft and presents it together with the required documents to the issuing bank. The issuing bank redeems the draft and pays cash to the seller if it finds that the documents submitted by the seller conform with what the letter of credit requires. The bank then obtains possession of the documents upon paying the seller. The transaction is completed when the buyer reimburses the issuing bank and acquires the documents entitling him to the goods. Under this arrangement, the seller gets paid only if he delivers the documents of title over the goods, while the buyer acquires said documents and control over the goods only after reimbursing the bank. Parties There would at least be three (3) parties: (a) the buyer, who procures the letter of credit and obliges himself to reimburse the issuing bank upon receipts of the documents of title; (b) the bank issuing the letter of credit, which undertakes to pay the seller upon receipt of the draft and proper document of titles and to surrender the documents to the buyer upon reimbursement; and, (c) the seller, who in compliance with the contract of sale ships the goods to the buyer and delivers the documents of title and draft to the issuing bank to recover payment. The number of the parties, not infrequently and almost invariably in international trade practice, may be increased. Thus, the services of an advising (notifying) bank may be utilized to convey to the seller the existence of the credit; or, of a confirming bank which will lend credence to the letter of credit issued by a lesser known issuing bank; or, of a paying bank, which undertakes to encash the drafts drawn by the exporter. Further, instead of going to the place of the issuing bank to claim payment, the buyer may approach another bank, termed the negotiating bank, to have the draft discounted. Governing Law Being a product of international commerce, the impact of this commercial instrument transcends national boundaries, and it is thus not uncommon to find a dearth of national law that can adequately provide for its governance. This country is no exception. Our own Code of Commerce basically introduces only its concept under Articles 567572, inclusive, thereof. It is no wonder then why great reliance has been placed on commercial usage and practice, which, in any case, can be justified by the universal acceptance of the autonomy of contract rules. The rules were later developed into what is now known as the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits ("U.C.P.") issued by the International Chamber of Commerce. It is by no means a complete text by itself, for, to be sure, there are other principles, which, although part of lex mercatoria, are not dealt with the U.C.P. Transfield Philippines, Inc. v. Luzon Hydro Corporation, 443 SCRA 307 (2004) FACTS On 26 March 1997, petitioner and respondent Luzon Hydro Corporation (hereinafter, LHC) entered into a Turnkey Contract whereby petitioner, as Turnkey Contractor, undertook to construct, on a turnkey basis, a seventy (70)-Megawatt hydro-electric power station at the Bakun River in the provinces of Benguet and Ilocos Sur (hereinafter, the Project). Petitioner was given the sole responsibility for the design, construction, commissioning, testing and completion of the Project. To secure performance of petitioners obligation on or before the target completion date, or such time for completion as may be determined by the parties agreement, petitioner opened in favor of LHC two (2) standby letters of credit. In the course of the construction of the project, petitioner sought various EOT to complete the Project. The extensions were requested allegedly due to several factors which prevented the completion of the Project on target date, such as force majeure occasioned by typhoon Zeb, barricades and demonstrations. LHC denied the requests, however. This gave rise to a series of legal actions between the parties which culminated in the instant petition. ISSUE Whether or not the beneficiary of an LOC can invoke the Independence Principle? RULING YES. To say that the independence principle may only be invoked by the issuing banks would render nugatory the purpose for which the letters of credit are used in commercial transactions. As it is, the independence doctrine works to the benefit of both the issuing bank and the beneficiary. Vintola v. Insular Bank of Asia and America, 150 SCRA 578 (1987) FACTS The Vintola spouses were engaged in manufacturing finished products from raw seashells. They applied for a Letter of Credit with IBAA, which authorized IBAA to negotiate for the Vintolas account drafts drawn by a certain Stalin Tan who was their supplier of seashells. Stalin Tan delivered shells worth forty thousand. The Vintolas executed a Trust Receipt Agreement with IBAA Cebu agreeing to hold the goods in trust for IBAA and to turn over the proceeds in case of a sale. The Vintolas defaulted, hence, IBAA demands from the Vintolas but they were not able to dispose of the shells and offered them to IBAA. IBAA refused and charged them with estafa. TC acquitted the Vintolas because the element of misappropriation was not present and that under the Trust Receipt, the remedy of IBAA is civil in nature not criminal. IBAA then filed a civil case but the TC dismissed it again, but later reconsidered, ordering the Vintolas to pay twenty-seven thousand and attorneys fees. ISSUE (1) Does the delivery of the seashells first to IBAA, and upon IBAAs refusal, to the trial court extinguish the Vintolas liability? (2) Does the previous acquittal bar the filing of the civil action since IBAA did not reserve the right to enforce civil liability? HELD Both NO. Delivery of the seashells did not extinguish Vintolas liability and the previous acquittal did not bar the filing of a civil action. A letter of credit-trust receipt arrangement is endowed with its own distinctive features and characteristics. Under the agreed set up, the bank extends a loan covered by the letter of credit, with the trust receipt as security for the loan. According to Samo. V. People: a trust receipt is considered as a security transaction intended to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral of the merchandise imported or purchased. So IBAA never became the real owner of the goods, and was merely the holder of a security title for the advances made under the LC. The Vintolas own the shells and hold it at their own risk, the trust agreement did not make the IBAA an investor. IBAA remained a creditor and a lender. Depositing of the goods with IBAA did not convert them to investors and extinguish the liability of the Vintolas. Even if they did not misappropriate or misapply or convert the seashells, they are still liable ex contractu under the terms of the LC/Trust Receipt separately from the estafa, hence they were properly sued despite the acquittal in the criminal case.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE OPERATIONS Sec. 76, NCBA: Foreign Exchange Holdings of the Banks. In order that the Bangko Sentral may at all times have foreign exchange resources sufficient to enable it to maintain the international stability and convertibility of the peso, or in order to promote the domestic investment of bank resources, the Monetary Board may require the banks to sell to the Bangko Sentral or to other banks all or part of their surplus holdings of foreign exchange. Such transfers may be required for all foreign currencies or for only certain of such currencies, according to the decision of the Monetary Board. The transfers shall be made at the rates established under the provisions of Section 74 of this Act. The Monetary Board may, whenever warranted, determine the net assets and net liabilities of banks and shall, in making such a determination, take into account the bank's networth, outstanding liabilities, actual and contingent, or such other financial or performance ratios as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Any such determination of net assets and net liabilities shall be applied in all banks uniformly and without discrimination. Sec. 77, NCBA: Requirement of Balanced Currency Position. The Monetary Board may require the banks to maintain a balanced position between their assets and liabilities in Philippine pesos or in any other currency or currencies in which they operate. The banks shall be granted a reasonable period of time in which to adjust their currency positions to any such requirement. The powers granted under this section shall be exercised only when special circumstances make such action necessary, in the opinion of the Monetary Board, and shall be applied to all banks alike and without discrimination. Sec. 78, NCBA: Regulation of Non-spot Exchange Transactions. In order to restrain the banks from taking speculative positions with respect to future fluctuations in foreign exchange rates, the Monetary Board may issue such regulations governing bank purchases and sales of non-spot exchange as it may consider necessary for said purpose. Sec. 79, NCBA: Other Exchange Profits and Losses. The banks shall bear the risks of non- compliance with the terms of the foreign exchange documents and instruments which they buy and sell, and shall also bear any other typically commercial or banking risks, including exchange risks not assumed by the Bangko Sentral under the provisions of the preceding section. Sec. 80, NCBA: Information on Exchange Operations. The banks shall report to the Bangko Sentral the volume and composition of their purchases and sales of gold and foreign exchange each day, and must furnish such additional information as the Bangko Sentral may request with reference to the movements in their accounts in foreign currencies. The Monetary Board may also require other persons and entities to report to it currently all transactions or operations in gold, in any shape or form, and in foreign exchange whether entered into or undertaken by them directly or through agents, or to submit such data as may be required on operations or activities giving rise to or in connection with or relating to a gold or foreign exchange transaction. The Monetary Board shall prescribe the forms on which such declarations must be made. The accuracy of the declarations may be verified by the Bangko Sentral by whatever inspection it may deem necessary.