#1 Republic Vs Eugenio Jr.docx

Republic, Petitioner vs. Eugenio, Respondent 545 SCRA 384 (2008) Facts: A series of investigations concerning the award of the NAIA 3 contracts to PIATCO was undertaken by the Ombudsman and the compliance and Investigation Staff (CIS) of Anti-Money Laundering Council. The OSG wrote AMLC requesting the latter’s assistance “in obtaining more evidence to completely reveal the financial trail of corruption surrounding the NAIA 3 Project. The CIS conducted an intelligence database search on the financial transactions of certain individuals involved in the award, including Pantaleon Alvarez who had been the chairman of the PBAC Technical committee, NAIA 3 Project. The search revealed that Alvarez maintained 8 bank accounts with 6 different banks. AMLC issued resolution whereby the council resolved to authorize the executive director of the AMLC “to sign and verify an application to inquire into and/or examine the deposits or investments of Pantaleon Alvarez et al., and their related web of accounts wherever theses may be found and to authorize the AMLC Secretariat “to conduct an inquiry into the subject accounts once the RTC Makati grants the application to inquire into and/or examine bank accounts of those persons. RTC granted the application. Pursuant to the order, CIS proceeded to inquire and examine the deposits, investments and related web accounts. Special Prosecutor of the Ombudsman wrote a letter requesting AMLC to investigate the accounts of Alvarez et al, which AMLC likewise heeded. Again, AMLC filed an application, this time with RTC Manila, to inquire into and/or examine 13 accounts and 2 related web of accounts allegedly having been used to facilitate corruption in NAIA 3 Project. Manila RTC issued an order granting Ex-parte the application. Alvarez filed an Urgent Motion to stay enforcement of the order. RTC stayed the order but soon after, reinstated the same. Issue: Whether or not the Ex-parte granting of the order by the Manila RTC is valid. Ruling: There is no need for a pre existing or pending case in court for violation of the AntiMoney Laundering Law before a bank inquiry order may be issued by the court. However it does not follow that such order may be availed of ex-parte. A bank inquiry order, unlike a freeze order cannot be issued unless notice is given to the owners of the account, allowing them the opportunity to contest the issuance of such order.

1