FACTS:

In May 1998, petitioner Marquez received an Order from the Ombudsman to produce bank documents for inspection in camera related to certain accounts maintained at Union Bank of the Philippines. The Ombudsman invoked their power under the Constitution and the Ombudsman Act of 1989 to investigate and access bank accounts and records. The purpose of the inspection was to trace the managers checks purchased by a respondent in a pending case. Initially, petitioner agreed to the inspection but later asked for more time to comply, citing difficulty in identifying the accounts. The Ombudsman refused the request, stating that the accounts could be identified and that the bank was obliged to preserve records of dormant accounts. Consequently, the Ombudsman issued an order directing petitioner to produce the bank documents, warning that failure to comply would be considered as indirect contempt and obstruction of justice. Subsequently, petitioner and Union Bank filed a petition for declaratory relief, prohibition, and injunction with the Regional Trial Court seeking to resolve the conflict between the relevant laws. The court, however, denied their request for a temporary restraining order.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the orders of the Ombudsman requiring petitioner to produce bank documents for inspection were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.

2. Whether the Ombudsman can implement its order to cite petitioner for indirect contempt.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman had the jurisdiction to issue the orders requiring petitioner to produce the bank documents for inspection. It was held that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and require the production and inspection of records and documents is sanctioned by the Constitution, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, and existing jurisprudence. The Court noted that the Ombudsman Act specifically provides for the power to examine and have access to bank accounts and records. Therefore, the Court annulled and set aside petitioner's petition to annul the Ombudsman's order.

2. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman can implement its order to cite petitioner for indirect contempt. It was held that the Ombudsman has the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court, and the same procedure and penalties apply. Thus, the Court denied petitioner's prayer to prohibit the implementation of the Ombudsman's order.

PRINCIPLES:

• The power of the Ombudsman to investigate and require the production and inspection of records and documents is sanctioned by the Constitution, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, and existing jurisprudence.

• The Ombudsman has the power to punish for contempt in accordance with the Rules of Court.