Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , the Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of Freeze Order is hereby GRANTED . Consequently, a FREEZE ORDER is effective immediately for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS FROM NOTICE to the following concerned banks with the following account names and numbers or related web of accounts, wherever they may be found: xxx xxx Moreover, the above-mentioned banks are ordered to SUBMIT by personal delivery to this Court and to the AMLC within twenty-four hours from receipt of this Resolution, a DETAI…
WHEREFORE , the Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of Freeze Order is hereby GRANTED . Consequently, a FREEZE ORDER is effective immediately for a period of SIX (6) MONTHS FROM NOTICE to the following concerned banks with the following account names and numbers or related web of accounts, wherever they may be found: xxx xxx Moreover, the above-mentioned banks are ordered to SUBMIT by personal delivery to this Court and to the AMLC within twenty-four hours from receipt of this Resolution, a DETAILED RETURN of their compliance herewith, specifying all pertinent and relevant information on all the frozen bank accounts subject of this Freeze Order. SO ORDERED . [10] In compliance with the notice of the CA, Metrobank submitted detailed returns. On 26 October 2016, Metrobank filed its Fourth Supplemental Return, including accounts under the name of BCD, identified as recipients of funds from the accounts subject of the Freeze Order: Account No. 7-285-51225-1 a closed account (Old BCD Account); and Account No. 7-285-51261-8 with an amount of PhP 48,539,839.65 (Subject BCD Account). [11] The following day, Metrobank sent a Letter [12] to BCD notifying it that the abovementioned accounts were identified as related and/or materially linked to one of the accounts in the Freeze Order. As a response, BCD filed a Motion [13] on 15 February 2017, praying that the Freeze Order and all its effects over the Subject BCD Account be lifted and set aside. It argued that Metrobank, a mere private entity, had no legal right to freeze the accounts of BCD, much less determine whether the same are part of the related web of accounts covered by the Freeze Order. BCD further contended that Metrobank could not have frozen its accounts without violating the Bank Secrecy Law. Ruling of the CA On 21 March 2017, the CA promulgated its assailed Resolution [14] denying the Motion to Lift Freeze Order filed by BCD, viz : WHEREFORE , premises considered, the Motion to Lift Freeze Order filed by BCD Foreign Exchange Corp. is DENIED . SO ORDERED.