Professional Documents
Culture Documents
21 Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals
21 Ilusorio vs. Court of Appeals
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/14
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
90
91
QUISUMBING, J.:
1
This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision
promulgated on January 28, 1999 by the Court of Appeals
in CAG.R. CV No. 47942, affirming the decision of the
then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV (now the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 138) dismissing
Civil Case No. 43907, for damages.
The facts as summarized by the Court of Appeals are as
follows: illusorio (petitioner)
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, manila banking corp -
the Manila Banking Corporation, under current Checking respondent bank
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/14
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
92
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/14
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
_______________
93
_______________
7 Ibid.
8 Id., at p. 30.
94
_______________
9 Id., at p. 10.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/14
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
10 Id., at p. 14.
11 Id., at p. 15.
12 Id., at p. 17.
95
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/14
1/22/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 393
96
analysis and examination (Exhibit “9”), but the same was denied
by the appellant. It was also the former which sought the
assistance of the NBI for an expert analysis of the signatures on
the questioned checks, but the same was unsuccessful for lack of
15
sufficient specimen signatures.
_______________
15 Id., at p. 28.
16 Id., at p. 29.
17 Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 641,
657 (2000).
97
_______________
98
_______________
22 Art. 2179. When the plaintiff’s own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. . .
23 252 SCRA 620, 633 (1996).
24 269 SCRA 695, 703710 (1997).
99
_______________
100
——o0o——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016fca4a0d118e31f4a9003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/14