PLEASE HELP ME WITH THIS ONE

can you make a case study regarding this?

Note: This is related to bank secrecy law of the Philippines or the RA 1405

G.R. No. 71479 October 18, 1990 MELLON BANK, N.A., petitioner, vs. HON. CELSO L. MAGSINO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch CLIX of the Regional Trial Court at Pasig; MELCHOR JAVIER, JR., VICTORIA JAVIER; HEIRS OF HONORIO POBLADOR, JR., namely: Elsa Alunan Poblador, Honorio Poblador III, Rafael Poblador, Manuel Poblador, Ma. Regina Poblador, Ma. Concepcion Poblador & Ma. Dolores Poblador; F.C. HAGEDORN & CO., INC.; DOMINGO JHOCSON, JR.; JOSE MARQUEZ; ROBERTO GARINO; ELNOR INVESTMENT

Please just copy and paste the provided link below in the address bar to access the copy of the case

LINK: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_71479_1990.html

I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE DISCLOSURE OR INQUIRY IN THE BANK OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE ILLEGALY ACQUIRED MONEY IS A VIOLATION OF THE RA 1405. THIS IS PROVIDED IN THE ARTICLE 2 OF THE SAID LAW THAT MONEY SUBJECT TO LITIGATION IN THE BANK DEPOSIT CAN BE INQUIRED.

PLEASE REFER TO THE EXAMPLE BELOW FOR THE FORMAT OF THE CASE STUDY:

EXAMPLE:

G.R. No. 170290 April 11, 2012 PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, VS. CITIBANK, N.A. and BANK OF AMERICA, S.T. & N.A., Respondents. FACTS: The Petitioner Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) is a government agency that exists to ensure that depositors are protected by providing deposit insurance coverage for the depositing public and to promote financial stability and was established in 1963 by virtue of Republic Act 3591. Respondent Citibank, N.A. (Citibank) is a banking corporation while respondent Bank of America, S.T. &N.A. (BA) is a national banking association. While conducting an examination in the books of account of both banks, they discovered that their head offices received a large sum of money in dollars which were not reported to PDIC as deposit liabilities subject to assessment for insurance. Due to this, Citibank and BA both filed a petition for declaratory relief, stating that the money placements they received from their head office and other foreign branches were not deposits and did not give rise to insurable deposit liabilities under Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 3591 (the PDIC Charter) and, as a consequence, the deficiency assessments made by FDIC were improper and erroneous. After consolidation and assessment, the Regional Trial Court settled in favor of Citibank and BA, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. ISSUE: The question is whether or not the funds transferred from the head office and international branches to the Philippine branch are insurable or assessable deposits subject to insurance premiums assessments under the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation with the errors of money placements in dollar deposits. DECISION: The Court ruled in favor of both Citibank and Bank of America stating that a branch has no separate legal personality. Even if the PDIC argued that the head offices of both banks are separate entities, insisting that the principal agent relationship is in the same jurisdiction, they were not able to push through with their dispute. In response to this, the respondents retaliated that the transfer funds happened in the books of account of the respective branches in their own head office which were located in the United States. In result to this, the Regional Trial Court adjourned the appeal because the sum of money in dollars is payable outside the Philippines, which is not under the deposit pursuant to Section 3(f) of the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation