This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-11-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| From the present petition, it is gathered that the "accounts" referred to by petitioner in his above-quoted letter are Trust Account No. 858 and Savings Account No. 0116-17345-9.[2] | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Zones of privacy are recognized and protected in our laws.[46] Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with customary legal process. The meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a "constitutional right" and "the right most valued by civilized men,"[47] but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" and "everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."[48] | |||||
|
2001-09-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In any event, the relief being sought by private respondent in her action for declaratory relief before the RTC of Makati City has been squarely addressed by our decision in Marquez vs. Desierto.[8] In that case, we ruled that before an in camera inspection of bank accounts may be allowed, there must be a pending case before a court of competent jurisdiction. Further, the account must be clearly identified, and the inspection limited to the subject matter of the pending case before the court of competent jurisdiction. The bank personnel and the account holder must be notified to be present during the inspection, and such inspection may cover only the account identified in the pending case. In the present case, since there is no pending litigation yet before a court of competent authority, but only an investigation by the Ombudsman on the so-called "scam", any order for the opening of the bank account for inspection is clearly premature and legally unjustified. | |||||