[G.R. No. 94723. August 21, 1997.

]
KAREN E. SALVACION, minor, thru Federico N. Salvacion, Jr., father and Natural
Guardian, and Spouses FEDERICO N. SALVACION, JR., and EVELINA E.
SALVACION , petitioners
vs.
CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, CHINA BANKING CORPORATION and
GREG BARTELLI y NORTHCOTT , respondents
DOCTRINE: Where a Filipino child was raped by a foreigner, the SC allowed, pro hac
vice (for this occasion), garnishment of foreign currency deposits stating: 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 guest.
FACTS:
1. February 4, 1989- Greg Bartelli y Northcott, an American tourist, coaxed and lured
Karen Salvacion, then 12 years old, to go with him to his apartment.
2. He detained her there for four days or until Feb. 7. He raped her a total of 10 times
the whole period.
3. Feb. 7- police arrested him and he was detained in Makati Municipal Jail. Policemen
recovered the ff. items from Bartelli:
(1) Dollar Check;
(2) Cocobank Bank Book [Peso Account];
(3) Dollar Account – China Banking Corp;
(4) ID;
(5) Philippine Money/cash (P234);
(6) 6pcs of Door Keys;
(7) Stuffed Doll (teddy bear) used in seducing the complainant.
4. Feb 16- Makati Fiscal filed a case against Bartelli for Serious Illegal Detention and for
the 4 counts of rape. On the same day, Salvacion (thru her parents, Federico and
Evelina) filed a civil case for damages with preliminary attachment against Bartelli.
5. Feb 24- Bartelli escaped from jail and, days later, pending his arrest, the criminal
cases were archived.
6. In the civil case, the judge granted the application of Salvacion for the issuance of
the writ of preliminary attachment and a writ for the same was issued after Salvacion
gave a bond for the same.
7. On March 1, 1989, the Deputy Sheriff of Makati served a Notice of Garnishment on
China Banking Corporation.
8. In a letter dated March 13, 1989 to the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking
Corporation invoked Republic Act No. 1405 (Law on Secrecy of Bank Deposits) as its
answer to the notice of garnishment served on it.
9. On March 15, 1989, Deputy Sheriff of Makati Armando de Guzman sent his reply to
China Banking Corporation saying that the garnishment did not violate the secrecy of
bank deposits since the disclosure is merely incidental to a garnishment properly and
legally made by virtue of a court order which has placed the subject deposits in custodia
legis.
10. In answer to this letter of the Deputy Sheriff of Makati, China Banking Corporation
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 of any court, legislative body, government agency or any
administrative body, whatsoever.
11. The counsel for petitioners inquired with the Central Bank on whether Sec. 113 of
the CB Circular No. 960 has any exception or whether said section has been repealed
or amended since said section has rendered nugatory the substantive right of the
plaintiff to have the claim sought to be enforced by the civil action secured by way of the
writ of preliminary attachment as granted to the plaintiff under Rule 57 of the Revised
Rules of Court.
12. The Central Bank replied: “The cited provision is absolute in application. It does not
admit of any exception, nor has the same been repealed nor amended. The purpose of
the law is to encourage dollar accounts within the country’s banking system which
would help in the development of the economy. There is no intention to render futile the
basic rights of a person as was suggested in your subject letter. The law may be harsh
as some perceive it, but it is still the law.”
13. Meanwhile, summons with the complaint was published in the Manila Times once a
week for three consecutive weeks. Greg Bartelli failed to file his answer to the complaint
and was declared in default. After hearing the case exparte, the court ruled in favor of
petitioners.
a. Note: After hearing the testimony of Karen, the Court believes that it was
undoubtedly a shocking and traumatic experience she had undergone which could
haunt her mind for a long, long time, the mere recall of which could make her feel so
humiliated, She had been actually humiliated once when she was refused admission at
the Abad Santos High School, Arellano University, where she sought to transfer from
another school simply because the school authorities of the said High School learned
about what happened to her and allegedly feared that they might be implicated in the
case.
 14. After publication and when the decision became final, Salvacion tried to
execute on Bartelli’s dollar deposit w/ China Bank. The bank, however, invoked Sec.
113 of CB Circular No. 960.

ISSUE:
WON Sec. 113 of Central Bank Circular No.960 and Sec. 8 of RA 6426 (Foreign
Currency Deposit Act) be made applicable to a foreign transient.

HELD:
Because of the peculiar circumstances of this case, Sec. 113 of CB Circular No.
960 and Sec. 8 of RA 6426 are held INAPPLICABLE to this case.
Respondents are required to comply with the writ of execution in the civil case and to
release to the petitioners the dollar deposit of Bartelli in such amount that would satisfy
the judgment.
Petitioner deserves to receive the damages awarded to her by the court. But this
petition for declaratory relief can only be entertained and treated as a petition for
mandamus to require respondents to honor and comply with the writ of execution in
Civil Case No. 89-3214.
RATIO:
1. Supreme Court has no original and exclusive jurisdiction over a petition for
declaratory relief. However, exceptions to this rule have been recognized. Thus, where
the petition has far-reaching implications and raises questions that should be resolved,
it may be treated as one for mandamus.
2. If Karen’s sad fate had happened to anybody’s own kin, it would be difficult for him to
fathom how the incentive for foreign currency deposit could be more important than his
child’s rights to said award of damages; in this case, the victim’s claim for damages
from this alien who had the gall to wrong a child of tender years of a country where he is
a mere visitor. This further illustrates the flaw in the questioned provisions.
3. R.A. No. 6426 was enacted in 1983 or at a time when the country’s economy was in
a shambles; when foreign investments were minimal and presumably, this was the
reason why said statute was enacted.
4. But the realities of the present times show that the country has recovered
economically; and even if not, the questioned law still denies those entitled to due
process of law for being unreasonable and oppressive.
5. The intention of the questioned law may be good when enacted. The law failed to
anticipate the iniquitous effects producing outright injustice and inequality.
6. SOLGEN, IN HIS COMMENT, OPINED:
a. Obviously, the foreign currency deposit made by a transient or a tourist is not
the kind of deposit encouraged by PD Nos. 1034 and 1035 and given incentives and
protection by said laws because such depositor stays only for a few days in the country
and, therefore, will maintain his deposit in the bank only for a short time.
b. Respondent Greg Bartelli, as stated, is just a tourist or a transient. He
deposited his dollars with respondent China Banking Corporation only for safekeeping
during his temporary stay in the Philippines. “For the reasons stated above, the Solicitor
General thus submits that the dollar deposit of respondent Greg Bartelli is not entitled to
the protection of Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960 and PD No. 1246 against
attachment, garnishment or other court processes.
7. The application of the law depends on the extent of its justice. Eventually, if we rule
that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank 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 guest like
accused Greg Bartelli.
8. 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 right and justice to prevail. “Ninguno non deue enriquecerse tortizeramente
con dano de otro.” 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.
(Padilla vs. Padilla, 74 Phil. 377).
9. It would be unthinkable, that the questioned Section 113 of Central Bank No. 960
would be used as a device by accused Greg Bartelli for wrongdoing, and in so doing,
acquitting the guilty at the expense of the innocent.