03 Salvacion v.

Central Bank of the Philippines because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country and, therefore,
G.R. No. 94723 | 21 August 1997 | J. Torres | Tiglao
TOPIC: Foreign Currency Deposit Unit
FACTS:
1. Greg Bartelli, an American tourist, was arrested for committing four
counts of rape and serious illegal detention against Karen Salvacion.
Police recovered from him several dollar checks and a dollar account
in the China Banking Corp. He was, however, able to escape from
prison. In a civil case filed against him, the trial court awarded
Salvacion moral, exemplary and attorney’s fees amounting to almost
P1,000,000.00.
2. Salvacion tried to execute the judgment on the dollar deposit of Bartelli
with the China Banking Corp. but the latter refused arguing that Section
113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 exempts foreign currency deposits
from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any
court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body
whatsoever. Salvacion therefore filed this action for declaratory relief in
the Supreme Court.
will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time. Considering that Bartelli
is just a tourist or a transient, he is not entitled to the protection of Section 113 of
Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against attachment,
garnishment or other court processes.
Further, the SC said: “In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent
of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of Central
Bank Circular No. 960 which exempts from attachment, garnishment, or any
other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or
any administrative body whatsoever, is applicable to a foreign transient,
injustice would result especially to a citizen aggrieved by a foreign guest like
accused Greg Bartelli. This would negate Article 10 of the New Civil Code which
provides that “in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.”

ISSUE: W/N Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and Section 8 of RA
6426, as amended by PD 1246, otherwise known as the Foreign Currency
Deposit Act, be made applicable to a foreign transient – NO.

HELD/RULING;
The provisions of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246,
insofar as it amends Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6426, are hereby held to be
INAPPLICABLE to this case because of its peculiar circumstances. Respondents
are hereby required to comply with the writ of execution issued in the civil case
and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount as
would satisfy the judgment.

Supreme Court ruled that the questioned law makes futile the favorable
judgment and award of damages that Salvacion and her parents fully deserve.
It then proceeded to show that the economic basis for the enactment of RA
No. 6426 is not anymore present; and even if it still exists, the questioned law still
denies those entitled to due process of law for being unreasonable and
oppressive. The intention of the 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.

The SC adopted the comment of the Solicitor General who argued that the
Offshore Banking System and the Foreign Currency Deposit System were
designed to draw deposits from foreign lenders and investors and,
subsequently, to give the latter protection. However, the foreign currency
deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not the kind of deposit encouraged
by PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given incentives and protection by said laws