You are on page 1of 2

S1ANDARD CHAR1LRLD BANK (Philippine Branch), et al. v.

SLNA1L
COMMI11LL ON BANKS, IINANCIAL INS1I1U1IONS AND CURRLNCILS
G.R. No. J67J73, 27 December 2007, Nachura, J. (Ln Banc)

vaeea, tbe vere fitivg of a crivivat or av aavivi.tratire covtaivt before a covrt or a qva.i;vaiciat
boa, .bovta vot avtovaticatt, bar tbe covavct of tegi.tatire ivre.tigatiov. Otberri.e, it rovta be etrevet,
ea., to .vbrert av, ivtevaea ivqvir, b, Covgre.. tbrovgb tbe covrevievt to, of iv.titvtivg a crivivat or av
aavivi.tratire covtaivt. vret,, tbe eerci.e of .orereigv tegi.tatire avtborit,, of rbicb tbe orer of
tegi.tatire ivqvir, i. av e..evtiat covovevt, cavvot be vaae .vboraivate to a crivivat or av aavivi.tratire
ivre.tigatiov.

Standard Chartered Bank Philippines ,SCB, is engaged in banking, trust and other
related actiities in the Philippines. Respondent Senate Committee on Banks, linancial
Institutions and Currencies, on the other hand, is one o the committees o the Senate o the
Philippines.

Senator Juan Ponce Lnrile, Vice-Chairman o respondent committee, accused SCB
o iolating the Securities Regulation Code ,R.A. 899, or selling unregistered oreign
securities. 1his has led the Senate, through respondent Committee, to conduct inestigation
in aid o legislation. Petitioner SCB reused to attend the inestigation proceedings on the
ground that criminal and ciil cases inoling the same issues were pending in courts.

ISSUL:

\hether or not the Senate Committee on Banks, linancial Institutions and
Currencies can conduct inestigation against SCB despite criminal and ciil cases against the
latter pending in courts

HLLD:

Petition DLNILD.

Citing evgov, ]r. r. evate tve Ribbov Covvittee, the petitioners claim that since the
issue o whether or not SCB-Philippines illegally sold unregistered oreign securities is
already preempted by the courts that took cognizance o the oregoing cases, the Senate
Committee, by this inestigation, would encroach upon the judicial powers ested solely in
these courts.

1he argument is misplaced. evgov does not apply squarely to this case.

It is true that in evgov, the Court declared that the issue to be inestigated was one
oer which jurisdiction had already been acquired by the Sandiganbayan, and to allow the
|Senate Blue Ribbon| Committee to inestigate the matter would create the possibility o
conlicting judgments, and that the inquiry into the same justiciable controersy would be an
encroachment on the exclusie domain o judicial jurisdiction that had set in much earlier.

1o the extent that, in the case at bench, there are a number o cases already pending
in arious courts and administratie bodies inoling the petitioners, relatie to the alleged
sale o unregistered oreign securities, there is a resemblance between this case and evgov.
loweer, the similarity ends there.

Central to the Court`s ruling in evgov-that the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee
was without any constitutional mooring to conduct the legislatie inestigation-was the
Court`s determination that the intended inquiry was not in aid o legislation. 1he Court
ound that the speech o Senator Lnrile, which sought such inestigation contained no
suggestion o any contemplated legislation, it merely called upon the Senate to look into
possible iolations o Section 5, Republic Act No. 3019.

Unortunately or the petitioners, this distinguishing actual milieu in
evgov does not obtain in the instant case. P.S. Resolution No. 166 is
explicit on the subject and nature o the inquiry to be ,and already being,
conducted by the respondent Committee, as ound in the last three !berea.
clauses.

1he unmistakable objectie o the inestigation, as set orth in the said resolution,
exposes the error in petitioners` allegation that the inquiry, as initiated in a priilege speech
by the ery same Senator Lnrile, was simply to denounce the illegal practice committed by a
oreign bank in selling unregistered oreign securities x x x.` 1his allacy is made more
glaring when we consider that, at the conclusion o his priilege speech, Senator Lnrile urged
the Senate to immediately conduct an inquiry, in aid o legislation, so as to preent the
occurrence o a similar raudulent actiity in the uture.`

Indeed, the mere iling o a criminal or an administratie complaint beore a court or
a quasi-judicial body should not automatically bar the conduct o legislatie inestigation.
Otherwise, it would be extremely easy to subert any intended inquiry by Congress through
the conenient ploy o instituting a criminal or an administratie complaint. Surely, the
exercise o soereign legislatie authority, o which the power o legislatie inquiry is an
essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or an administratie
inestigation.

You might also like