Salvacion v. Central Bank

KAREN E. SALVACION v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT,
G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997

FACTS:

• Karen E. Salvacion, herein petitioner, then 12 years old, was coaxed and lured by private respondent Greg Bartelli y Northcott to go with him in his apartment, where she was detained for four days from February 4 to 7, 1989; and was raped 10 times (once on February 4 and 3 times a day from February 5-7). Aside from the criminal case for serious illegal detention and 4 counts of rape filed by the Makati investigating fiscal, the petitioner along with her parents, file in Regional Trial Court (RTC) a civil case for damages with preliminary attachment against Bartelli, which the court then granted.
• A notice of garnishment was served to China Banking Corporation, where the dollar account of the private respondent was deposited, by the Deputy Sheriff of Makati. But respondent bank invoking Republic Act No. 1405 as its answer to the notice of garnishment served on it and later on invoked Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, to the effect that the dollar deposits of defendant Greg Bartelli are exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body. In a letter in response to the inquiry of the counsel of petitioners to Central Bank, it is stated that the provision in Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 is absolute in application and that it does not admit of any exception, nor has the same been repealed nor amended.
• March 29, 1990, after hearing the case ex-parte, the court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, Petitioners tried to execute on Bartelli’s dollar deposit.

ISSUES:

• Whether the dollar bank deposit of Greg Bartelli in China Bank Corporation be exempted from attachment, garnishment or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body

HELD:

• No, the provisions of Section 133 of CB Circular No. 960 are hereby held to be inapplicable to this case because of its peculiar circumstances and the Court requires respondents to comply with the writ to execution and to release to petitioners the dollar deposit of respondent Greg Bartelli y Northcott in such amount as would justify the judgment. In fine, the application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule that the questioned Section 113 of CB 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 guessed 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 for right and justice to prevail. Simply stated, when the statute is silent or ambiguous, this is one of those fundamental solutions that would respond to the vehement urge of conscience.