ILLUSORIO V. CA
393 SCRA 89
Petitioner was a prominent businessman who, because of different business commitments, entrusted to his then secretary the handling of his credit cards and checkbooks. For a material period of time, the secretary was able to encash and deposit in her personal account money from the account of petitioner. Upon knowledge of her acts, she was fired immediately and criminal actions were filed against her. Thereafter, petitioner requested the bank to restore its money but the bank refused to
The petitioner doesn’t have a course of action against the bank. To be entitled to damages, petitioner has the burden of proving negligence on the part of the bank for failure to detect the discrepancy in the signatures on the checks. It is incumbent upon petitioner to establish the fact of forgery. Curiously though, petitioner failed to supply additional signature specimens as requested by the NBI. The bank was not also remiss in performance of its duties, it practices due diligence in encashing checks. The bank didn’t
have any hint of the modus operandi of Eugenio as she was a regular customer, designated by the petitioner himself to transact on his behalf.
It was petitioner who was negligent in this case. He failed to examine his bank statements and this was the proximate cause of his own damage. Because of this negligence, he is precluded from setting up the defense of forgery with regard the checks.