Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 123 views

    Ilusorio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jayson
    Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his secretary Katherine Eugenio with his credit cards, checkbook and blank checks. Eugenio was then able to encash 17 checks worth P119,634.34 from Ilusorio's account and deposit them into her personal account. Ilusorio requested the bank restore the funds but they refused. The court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Ilusorio failed to prove the bank was negligent and that he himself was negligent for giving his secretary unrestricted access and failing to check his bank statements, which was the proximate cause of his loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ilusorio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jayson
    123 views2 pages
    Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his secretary Katherine Eugenio with his credit cards, checkbook and blank checks. Eugenio was then able to encash 17 checks worth P119,634.34 from Ilusorio's account and deposit them into her personal account. Ilusorio requested the bank restore the funds but they refused. The court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Ilusorio failed to prove the bank was negligent and that he himself was negligent for giving his secretary unrestricted access and failing to check his bank statements, which was the proximate cause of his loss.

    Original Description:

    Torts- Illusorio vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his secretary Katherine Eugenio with his credit cards, checkbook and blank checks. Eugenio was then able to encash 17 checks worth P119,634.34 from Ilusorio's account and deposit them into her personal account. Ilusorio requested the bank restore the funds but they refused. The court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Ilusorio failed to prove the bank was negligent and that he himself was negligent for giving his secretary unrestricted access and failing to check his bank statements, which was the proximate cause of his loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    123 views2 pages

    Ilusorio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    Jayson
    Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his secretary Katherine Eugenio with his credit cards, checkbook and blank checks. Eugenio was then able to encash 17 checks worth P119,634.34 from Ilusorio's account and deposit them into her personal account. Ilusorio requested the bank restore the funds but they refused. The court ruled in favor of the bank, finding that Ilusorio failed to prove the bank was negligent and that he himself was negligent for giving his secretary unrestricted access and failing to check his bank statements, which was the proximate cause of his loss.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RAMON K. ILUSORIO v. COURT OF APPEALS.

    G.R. No. 139130. November 27, 2002.

    Facts:

    Petitioner is a prominent businessman who, at the time material to this case, was the Managing Director
    of Multinational Investment Bancorporation and the Chairman and/or President of several other
    corporations. He was a depositor in good standing of respondent bank, the Manila Banking Corporation,
    under current Checking Account No. 0609037-0. As he was then running about 20 corporations, and was
    going out of the country a number of times, petitioner entrusted to his secretary, Katherine2 E. Eugenio,
    his credit cards and his checkbook with blank checks. It was also Eugenio who verified and reconciled the
    statements of said checking account.

    Ramon Ilusorio entrusted his credit cards and checkbooks and blank checks to his secretary (Eugenio).
    Apparently, his secretary Eugenio was able to encash and deposit to her personal account 17 checks
    drawn against his account ( with an aggregate amount of P119,634.34)

    Ilusorio requested to restore to his account the value of the checks that were wrongfully encashed but
    the bank refused, hence the case.

    In court, the bank testified that they make sure that the sign on the check is verified. When asked by the
    NBI to submit standard signs to compare, Ilusorio failed to comply. The lower held held in favor of
    defendant.

    Issue:
    Whether the bank was negligent in receiving the checks.

    Held:
    No.
    The SC affirmed the lower court's decision. Ilusorio failed to prove that the bank was negligent on their
    part as he has the burden of proof. The bank's employees did not know the secretary's modus operandi
    as she was always transacting in behalf of Ilusorio.

    The SC even held that it was Ilusorio who was negligent. He accorded his secretary with an unusual degree
    of trust and unrestricted access to his finances. Furthermore, despite the fact that the bank was regularly
    sending statements of account, he failed to check them until he found out that his secretary was using his
    credit cards.

    Petitioner’s failure to examine his bank statements appears as the proximate cause of his own damage.
    Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient
    intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.21 In the
    instant case, the bank was not shown to be remiss in its duty of sending monthly bank statements to
    petitioner so that any error or discrepancy in the entries therein could be brought to the bank’s attention
    at the earliest opportunity. But, petitioner failed to examine these bank statements not because he was
    prevented by some cause in not doing so, but because he did not pay sufficient attention to the matter.
    Had he done so, he could have been alerted to any anomaly committed against him. In other words,
    petitioner had sufficient opportunity to prevent or detect any misappropriation by his secretary had he only
    reviewed the status of his accounts based on the bank statements sent to him regularly. In view of Article
    2179 of the New Civil Code, when the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate and proximate cause
    of his injury, no recovery could be had for damages.

    Ilusorio also cites Sec. 23 of the NIL that a forged check is inoperative and that he bank has no authority
    to pay. While true, the case at bar falls under the exception stated in the section. The SC held that
    Ilusorio is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in
    entrusting his secretary.

    You might also like