243 - Ombudsman v. Ibay

OMBUDSMAN v. FRANCISCO IBAY (Presiding Judge of RTC Maa!i"# Union Ban of !$e P$i%i&&ines# and 'ourdes Marue) September 3, 2001 | Quisumbing, J. | Declaratory Relief (Rule 3! Digester" Santos, #$na SUMMARY* %mbu&sman con&ucte& an in'estigation on t$e allege& scam) on t$e *ublic +states ut$ority-mari oastal /ay De'elopment orporation. #nitial result of t$e in'estigation re'eale& t$at t$e allege& anomaly as committe& t$roug$ t$e issuance of c$ecs $ic$ ere subseuently &eposite& in se'eral nancial institutions. #n line it$ t$is, %mbu&sman is sue& an or&er &irecting 4our&es 4our&es 5arue6, 5anager of 7nion /an of t$e *$ilippines 8 Julia 9argas /ranc$, to pro&uce se'eral ban &ocuments for an in camera) inspection relati'e to : accounts reporte&ly maintaine& in t$e sai& branc$. 5arue6 faile& to comply it$ suc$ or&er, e;plaining t$at t$e subor preliminary in
in'ol'e&. Similarly, t$e R% is e;plicit t$at suc$ action s$all be broug$t before t$e appropriate R?. Reuisites for an action for &eclaratory relief" (1! t$ere must be a
•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

• •

•

contempt un&er Section 3 (b!, Rule C1 of t$e Re'ise& Rules of ourt, in relation to Section 1A (E! of R.. CC0 (%mbu&sman  ct of 1EBE!. ?$e same mig$t also constitute illful obstruction of t$e laful e;ercise of t$e functions of t$e %mbu&sman, $ic$ is punis$able un&er Section 3 of R.. CC0. %mbu&sman issue& anot$er or&er to 5arue6 to pro&uce t$e reueste& ban &ocuments for in camera) inspection. #n t$e e'ent of $er failure to comply as &irecte&, 5arue6 as or&ere& to s$o cause $y s$e s$oul& not be cite& for contempt an& $y s$e s$oul& not be c$arge& for obstruction. #nstea& of complying it$ t$e or& er, 5arue6 le& a petition for &eclaratory relief it$ an application for temporary restraining or&er an&>or preliminary inor gui&elines as regar&s $er rig$ts as ell as %mbu&sman=s poer to inspect ban &eposits un&er t$e cite& pro'isions of la. 5ean$ile, 5arue6 le& it$ S a petition for certiorari an& pro$ibition, assailing %mbu&sman=s or&er to institute in&irect contempt procee&ings against $er. %mbu&sman mo'e& to &ismiss t$e aforesai& petition for &eclaratory relief on t$e groun& t$at t$e R? $as no  
RU'IN,* *etition &ismisse&.  -$e!$er Judge Ia/ a0!ed 1i!$ou! 2urisdi0!ion and3or 1i!$ grave ause of dis0re!ion in en!er!aining !$e 0i!ed &e!i!ion for de0%ara!or/ re%ief 4NO. %mbu&sman conten&s t$at t$e R? of 5aati lacs
•

•

1 Restrictions.HIo rit of in
•

(1! t$e contro'ersy concerns t$e e;tent of t$e poer of %mbu&sman to e;amine ban accounts un&er Sec. 1A (B! of  R.. CC0 visavis t$e &uty of bans un&er R 1:0A not to &i'ulge any information relati'e to &eposits of $ate'er nature (2! t$e interests of t$e parties are a&'erse consi&ering t$e antagonistic assertion of a legal rig$t on one $an&, t$at is t$e poer of %mbu&sman to e;amine ban &eposits, an& on t$e ot$er, t$e &enial t$ereof apparently by 5arue6 $o refuse& to allo %mbu&sman to inspect in camera certain ban accounts (3! t$e party seeing relief, 5arue6 in t$is case, asserts a legal interest in t$e contro'ersy (:! $e issue in'oe& is ripe for
&eclaratory relief. Ior can it be sai& t$at Ju&ge #bay gra'ely abuse& $is &iscretion in &oing so. NOT+S* ?$e relief being soug$t by 5arue6 in $er action for &eclaratory relief before t$e R? of 5aati $as been suarely a&&resse& by S=s &ecision in 5arue6 's. Desierto. #n t$at case, S rule& t$at before an i n camera inspection of ban accounts may be alloe&, t$ere must be a pen&ing case before a court of competent