No laughing all the way to the bank

"Here’s the story of a beleaguered depositor."

Without doubt, it’s a king-size headache for this blue chip depositor.

The depositor, whom we cannot identify for fear of reprisal, may be engaged in big money transactions, but the predicament it finds itself in—perhaps through no fault of its own—is akin to the Biblical David and Goliath one-on-one.

But if you noticed, I used the pronoun “it” because we are talking here not about a human being, but a corporation.

According to highly confidential information reaching this writer, this particular company is waging a lonely legal battle to unfreeze its deposits with the bank.

For the sake of fairness, we are likewise not giving away the name of the bank.

The whys and wherefores of the controversy is still unclear to me though it appears that it is all water under the bridge at this point.

What matters now is to resolve this bank-depositor dispute in a fair, equitable, and justifiable fashion. The depositor must regain access to its funds to be able to put back its business on an even keel. On the other hand, the bank must manifest goodwill, good faith, and good service to its clientele.

Can somebody enlighten me on this — do banks have quasi-judicial powers to be able to countermand orders handed down by the regular courts of law?

Are banks liable, criminally, civilly, or administratively, for cutting corners with the law, or perhaps, breach of contract with their clients insofar as handling of deposits are concerned?

Certainly, there are rules—protocols, if you may—in dealing with freeze orders against a bank deposit. Banks cannot do as they please on funds entrusted to them for safekeeping.

I gathered that under the law, a freeze order should be implemented immediately and for a period not exceeding six months.

In the case at hand, the bank allegedly acted on the freeze order five months after it was issued, and informed the client about it also after five months.

The beleaguered depositor described such delays as a “deliberate oversight and a clear violation of the rules.”

However, the hapless depositor seemed to have been vindicated after the court upheld its counsel’s arguments and declared that the freeze order had expired, hence must be lifted immediately since pertinent government lawyers did not file follow up suits.

Subsequently, the depositor formally asked the bank to comply with the court order, but the bank flatly rejected the proposition for no clear reason.

The bank’s refusal gave rise to a standoff, but not without prejudice to the aggrieved depositor.

**

What happened to the inter-parliamentary courtesy between the two Houses of Congress?

Early this week, Senator Richard Gordon deplored the House of Representatives’ move to probe OCTA Research Group over its projections on COVID-19 matters which has been described as too alarmist by some groups.

The House of Representatives, specifically, wants to scrutinize the group’s “qualifications, research methodologies, partnerships and composition.”

Gordon however, expressed strong opposition to the House probe saying that “using the power of congressional oversight to question the motives of a private non-profit group whose members are academics with published credentials ‘is a waste of resources and constitutes a veiled attempt to assign the blame to the bearer of bad news.”

He even asked if OCTA is “being punished for being right.”

Right, he says? Isn’t it the reason why OCTA is being probed? That there is doubt on the accuracy of its projection as the group allegedly has involved itself in some misrepresentations?

On several occasions, the group used the name UP-OCTA and UP-OCTA Research as if it is part of the academic institution when it is not. UP Diliman Associate Professor Peter Cayton categorically denied any linkage in any form to the university.

Octa keeps on claiming its projections were based on scientific studies. However, Buhay Rep. Lito Atienza claims there is no medical doctor or scientist in the composition of the group as most of its members are political scientists.

And that is why a probe is being called for.

Now the question: Why is Gordon meddling in the House’s internal affairs?

There is a time-honored inter-parliamentary courtesy being observed by both Chambers wherein they avoid interfering in each other’s legislative functions.

Has any member of the House questioned the Senate when it investigated the Philippine Gaming and Amusement Corporation over the issue of criminal activities they tried to associate with the Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators or POGOs?

Any member of the House could have easily asked why the Senate seemingly wants to punish Pagcor when it, and its legally regulated Pogos have nothing to do with the criminal activities being committed by the illegal gaming operators or the NOGOs, but no one did. And this despite the billions of pesos it has been remitting to the national coffers especially now during this pandemic.

Does Gordon see him now or the Senate as superior to the House? He is no neophyte. He should be aware how to respect the House as a separate institution and his counterparts in that particular Chamber.