Dear PAO,
I am writing to seek your advice regarding my daughter, who became a victim of alleged human trafficking committed by a foreign national here in the Philippines. In the course of the proceedings, we learned that the foreigner maintained a foreign currency deposit with a Philippine bank, which may contain transactions relevant to the case and which could potentially be used to satisfy the damages that may be awarded to my daughter. However, when the issue of examining or obtaining his bank records was raised, the foreigner claimed that his accounts were confidential; hence, could not be examined or garnished. Is his claim correct?
Mae
Dear Mae,
Section 8 of Republic Act (RA) 6426, or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines, provides, as a general rule, that foreign currency deposits are absolutely confidential in nature and cannot be examined, inquired into, or looked into by any person except upon the written permission of the depositor. In addition, foreign currency deposits are also exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency, or administrative body.
Aside from the foregoing, it is also important to make reference to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Salvacion v. Central Bank of the Philippines, China Banking Corporations and Greg Bartelli, GR 94723, Aug. 21, 1997, written by Associate Justice Justo Torres Jr., where it was expounded that the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. The garnishment of foreign currency deposits shall be allowed in extraordinary cases in order to prevent injustice; otherwise, it 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.”
Moreover, RA 9208, as amended by RA 11862, otherwise known as the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022,” limited the strict confidential nature of foreign currency deposits vis-à-vis investigation of human trafficking cases. Section 9 (d) thereof states in part:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 as amended, Republic Act No. 6426 as amended, Republic Act No. 8791 and other pertinent laws, the LEAs investigating cases of trafficking in persons may inquire into or examine any particular deposit or investment, including related accounts, with any banking institution or non-bank financial institution; or require financial intermediaries, internet payment system providers, and other financial facilitators to provide financial documents and information, 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 reasonable ground to believe that the deposit or investments, including related accounts involved, are related to trafficking in persons and violations of this Act.” (Emphasis supplied)
The Foreign Currency Deposit Act was enacted to encourage legitimate foreign currency deposits and investments; it was not intended to provide a means for a wrongdoer to evade one’s lawful obligations or defeat a victim’s lawful claim for damages.
Accordingly, the foreign currency deposit may, in appropriate circumstances, be examined and garnished pursuant to proper judicial process, particularly where its continued protection would result in grave injustice and would effectively prevent the victim from enforcing a valid judgment for damages. A person should not be permitted to use the Foreign Currency Deposit Act as a shield to evade civil liability arising from his or her own wrongful conduct.
In the present case, therefore, the foreign currency deposits of the suspect may be examined if there is reasonable ground to believe that the same were used for or in connection with human trafficking activities. Later on, the deposits may also be garnished if warranted by extraordinary circumstances in order to prevent injustice. The protection granted by the law should not be construed as extending to the point of allowing a wrongdoer to use it to escape criminal and civil liability.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
