The prohibition against an examination of or inquiry into bank deposits under R.A. 1405 does not preclude garnishment in satisfaction of a judgment.
Facts: Liong, cashier of China Banking Corporation, was ordered to inform the Court whether or not there is a deposit in the China Banking Corporation of defendant B&B Forest Development Corporation (BBFDC), and if there is any deposit, to hold the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further order from the Court. Liong and China Banking Corporation refuse to comply with a court process garnishing the bank deposit of BBFDC by invoking the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 (Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act) which allegedly prohibits the disclosure of any information concerning to bank deposits.
Held: The lower court did not order an examination of or inquiry into deposit of B&B Forest Development Corporation, as contemplated in the law. It merely required Tan Kim Liong to inform the court whether or not the defendant B&B Forest Development Corporation had a deposit in the China Banking Corporation only for the purposes of the garnishment issued by it, so that the bank would hold the same intact and not allow any withdrawal until further order. It was not the intention of the lawmakers to place bank deposits beyond the reach of execution to satisfy a final judgment. It is clear from the discussion of the conference committee report that the prohibition against examination of or inquiry into bank deposit under RA 1405 does not preclude its being garnished to insure satisfaction of a judgment. Indeed there is no real inquiry in such a case, and 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. [China Banking Corporation and Tan Kim Liong vs. Hon. Wenceslao Ortega et. al, G.R. No. L-34964, 31 January 1973]