Dona Adela Export International v. Trade and Investment Development Corp (G.R. No. 201931)

Facts:

Petitioner Dona Adela filed a Petition for Voluntary Insolvency before the RTC. After finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, RTC declared petitioner herein as insolvent and stayed all civil proceedings against it. Thereafter, Atty. Arlene Gonzales was appointed as a receiver and proceeded to make the necessary report, to engage appraisers and require the creditors to submit proof of their respective claims. Atty. Gonzales then filed a Motion for Parties to Enter Into Compromise Agreement incorporating therein her proposed terms of compromise. Then, TIDCORP and BPI also filed a Joint Motion to Approve Agreement which was approved. Petitioner filed a motion for partial reconsideration claiming that TIDCORP and BPI’s agreement imposes upon it several obligations such as payment of expenses and taxes and waiver of confidentiality of bank deposits when it is not a party and signatory to the said agreement. RTC denied the motion.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner is bound by the provision in the BPI-TIDCORP Joint Motion to Approve Agreement to waive its rights to confidentiality of its bank deposits under R.A. No. 1405.

Ruling: NO.

R.A. No. 1405 provides for exceptions when records of deposits may be disclosed. These are under any of the following instances: (a) upon written permission of the depositor, (b) in cases of impeachment, (c) upon order of a competent court in the case of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials or, (d) when the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation, and (e) in cases of violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Council may inquire into a bank account upon order of any competent court.

In this case, the Joint Motion to Approve Agreement was executed by BPI and TIDCORP only. There was no written consent given by petitioner or its representative, Epifanio Ramos, Jr., that petitioner is waiving the confidentiality of its bank deposits. The provision on the waiver of the confidentiality of petitioner’s bank deposits was merely inserted in the agreement. It is clear therefore that petitioner is not bound by the said provision since it was without the express consent of petitioner who was not a party and signatory to the said agreement.

Clearly, the waiver of confidentiality of petitioner’s bank deposits in the BPI-TIDCORP Joint Motion to Approve Agreement lacks the required written consent of petitioner and conformity of the receiver. We, thus, hold that petitioner is not bound by the said provision.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s