SECOND DIVISION

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

RAMON K. ILUSORIO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF

APPEALS, and THE MANILA BANKING CORPORATION,
respondents.

People's Law Office for petitioner.

Puyat Jacinto & Santos and Asedillo and Associates for TMBC.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner is a prominent businessman, and as he was going out of the

country a number of times, he entrusted to his secretary his credit cards and his
checkbook with blank checks. Subsequently, petitioner filed a criminal action
against his aforesaid secretary for estafa thru falsification for encashing and
depositing to her personal account seventeen checks drawn against the account of
the petitioner at respondent bank. Petitioner then requested the respondent bank to
credit back and restore to his account the value of the checks which were
wrongfully encashed, but respondent bank refused. Hence, petitioner filed the
instant case. Manila Bank sought the expertise of the National Bureau of
Investigation in determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing on the
checks. However, petitioner failed to submit his specimen signatures for purposes
of comparison with those on the questioned checks. Consequently, the trial court
dismissed the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that petitioner's own
negligence was the proximate cause of his loss. Hence, this petition. SaDICE

In affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled
that petitioner has no cause of action against Manila 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, i.e., by submitting his specimen
signatures and comparing them with those on the questioned checks. Petitioner, by
his own inaction, was precluded from setting up forgery.

The Court likewise ruled that under Section 23 of the Negotiable

Instruments Law, petitioner is precluded from setting up the forgery, assuming
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 1
 there is forgery, due to his own negligence in entrusting to his secretary his credit
cards and checkbook including the verification of his statements of account.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; EVIDENCE; CREDIBILITY; FACTUAL

FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT, GENERALLY NOT DISTURBED ON
APPEAL. — We stress the rule that the factual findings of a trial court, especially
when affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon us and entitled to utmost
respect and even finality. We find no palpable error that would warrant a reversal
of the appellate court's assessment of facts anchored upon the evidence on record.

2. CIVIL LAW; QUASI-DELICT; DAMAGES CANNOT BE

RECOVERED WHEN PLAINTIFF'S OWN NEGLIGENCE IS THE
IMMEDIATE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY; CASE AT BAR. —
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. 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.

3. COMMERCIAL LAW; NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW;

FORGERY; EFFECT OF FORGED SIGNATURE; EXCEPTION; CASE AT
BAR. — Petitioner further contends that under Section 23 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law a forged check is inoperative, and that Manila Bank had no
authority to pay the forged checks. True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged
or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the
check is wholly inoperative. No right to retain the instrument, or to give a
discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party, can be
acquired through or under such signature. However, the rule does provide for an
exception, namely: "unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such
right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority." In the instant
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 2
 case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from
setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in
entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification
of his statements of account.

4. REMEDIAL LAW; CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; PROSECUTION OF

OFFENSES; PLAINTIFF IN CRIMINAL ACTION IS THE STATE, FOR THE
COMMISSION OF FELONY IS AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATE; CASE
AT BAR. — [T]he fact that Manila Bank had filed a case for estafa against
Eugenio would not stop it from asserting the fact that forgery has not been clearly
established. Petitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the latter is
not the actual party to the criminal action. In a criminal action, the State is the
plaintiff, for the commission of a felony is an offense against the State. Thus,
under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court the complaint or information filed
in court is required to be brought in the name of the "People of the Philippines."
SCDaET

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J : p

This petition for review seeks to reverse the decision 1(1) promulgated on
January 28, 1999 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.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:

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. 06-09037-0. As he was then running about 20 corporations,
and was going out of the country a number of times, petitioner entrusted to his
secretary, Katherine 2(2) 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. 3(3)

Between the dates September 5, 1980 and January 23, 1981, Eugenio was
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 3
 able to encash and deposit to her personal account about seventeen (17) checks
drawn against the account of the petitioner at the respondent bank, with an
aggregate amount of P119,634.34. Petitioner did not bother to check his statement
of account until a business partner apprised him that he saw Eugenio use his credit
cards. Petitioner fired Eugenio immediately, and instituted a criminal action
against her for estafa thru falsification before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of
Rizal. Private respondent, through an affidavit executed by its employee, Mr.
Dante Razon, also lodged a complaint for estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents against Eugenio on the basis of petitioner's statement that his signatures
in the checks were forged. 4(4) Mr. Razon's affidavit states:

That I have examined and scrutinized the following checks in

accordance with prescribed verification procedures with utmost care and
diligence by comparing the signatures affixed thereat against the specimen
signatures of Mr. Ramon K. Ilusorio which we have on file at our said office
on such dates,

xxx xxx xxx

That the aforementioned checks were among those issued by

Manilabank in favor of its client MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO, . . .

That the same were personally encashed by KATHERINE E.

ESTEBAN, an executive secretary of MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO in said
Investment Corporation;

That I have met and known her as KATHERINE E. ESTEBAN the

attending verifier when she personally encashed the above-mentioned checks
at our said office;

That MR. RAMON K. ILUSORIO executed an affidavit expressly

disowning his signature appearing on the checks further alleged to have not
authorized the issuance and encashment of the same. . . . 5(5)

Petitioner then requested the respondent bank to credit back and restore to
its account the value of the checks which were wrongfully encashed but
respondent bank refused. Hence, petitioner filed the instant case. 6(6)

At the trial, petitioner testified on his own behalf, attesting to the truth of
the circumstances as narrated above, and how he discovered the alleged forgeries.
Several employees of Manila Bank were also called to the witness stand as hostile
witnesses. They testified that it is the bank's standard operating procedure that
whenever a check is presented for encashment or clearing, the signature on the
check is first verified against the specimen signature cards on file with the bank.

Manila Bank also sought the expertise of the National Bureau of

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 4
 Investigation (NBI) in determining the genuineness of the signatures appearing on
the checks. However, in a letter dated March 25, 1987, the NBI informed the trial
court that they could not conduct the desired examination for the reason that the
standard specimens submitted were not sufficient for purposes of rendering a
definitive opinion. The NBI then suggested that petitioner be asked to submit
seven (7) or more additional standard signatures executed before or about, and
immediately after the dates of the questioned checks. Petitioner, however, failed to
comply with this request.

After evaluating the evidence on both sides, the court a quo rendered
judgment on May 12, 1994 with the following dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, finding no sufficient basis for plaintiff's cause herein

against defendant bank, in the light of the foregoing considerations and
established facts, this case would have to be, as it is hereby DISMISSED.

Defendant's counterclaim is likewise DISMISSED for lack of

sufficient basis.

SO ORDERED. 7(7)

Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals by way of a

petition for review but without success. The appellate court held that petitioner's
own negligence was the proximate cause of his loss. The appellate court disposed
as follows:

WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. Costs

against the appellant.

SO ORDERED. 8(8)

Before us, petitioner ascribes the following errors to the Court of Appeals:

A. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT

THE RESPONDENT BANK IS ESTOPPED FROM RAISING THE
DEFENSE THAT THERE WAS NO FORGERY OF THE
SIGNATURES OF THE PETITIONER IN THE CHECK
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT FILED A CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENTS AGAINST KATHERINE
EUGENIO USING THE AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER STATING
THAT HIS SIGNATURES WERE FORGED AS PART OF THE
AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT. 9(9)

B. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT APPLYING SEC.

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 5
 23, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS LAW. 10(10)

C. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE

BURDEN OF PROOF IS WITH THE RESPONDENT BANK TO
PROVE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT DAMAGE, TO
THE PETITIONER, AND THAT IT WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN
THE SELECTION AND SUPERVISION OF ITS EMPLOYEES.
11(11)

D. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT

RESPONDENT BANK SHOULD BEAR THE LOSS, AND
SHOULD BE MADE TO PAY PETITIONER, WITH RECOURSE
AGAINST KATHERINE EUGENIO ESTEBAN. 12(12)

Essentially the issues in this case are: (1) whether or not petitioner has a
cause of action against private respondent; and (2) whether or not private
respondent, in filing an estafa case against petitioner's secretary, is barred from
raising the defense that the fact of forgery was not established. aDSIHc

Petitioner contends that Manila Bank is liable for damages for its
negligence in failing to detect the discrepant checks. He adds that as a general rule
a bank which has obtained possession of a check upon an unauthorized or forged
endorsement of the payee's signature and which collects the amount of the check
from the drawee is liable for the proceeds thereof to the payee. Petitioner invokes
the doctrine of estoppel, saying that having itself instituted a forgery case against
Eugenio, Manila Bank is now estopped from asserting that the fact of forgery was
never proven.

For its part, Manila Bank contends that respondent appellate court did not
depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, hence there is
no reason for the reversal of its ruling. Manila Bank additionally points out that
Section 23 13(13) of the Negotiable Instruments Law is inapplicable, considering
that the fact of forgery was never proven. Lastly, the bank negates petitioner's
claim of estoppel. 14(14)

On the first issue, we find that petitioner has no cause of action against
Manila 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, i.e., by submitting his specimen signatures and comparing them with those
on the questioned checks. Curiously though, petitioner failed to submit additional
specimen signatures as requested by the National Bureau of Investigation from
which to draw a conclusive finding regarding forgery. The Court of Appeals found
that petitioner, by his own inaction, was precluded from setting up forgery. Said
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 6
 the appellate court:

We cannot fault the court a quo for such declaration, considering that
the plaintiff's evidence on the alleged forgery is not convincing enough. The
burden to prove forgery was upon the plaintiff, which burden he failed to
discharge. Aside from his own testimony, the appellant presented no other
evidence to prove the fact of forgery. He did not even submit his own
specimen signatures, taken on or about the date of the questioned checks, for
examination and comparison with those of the subject checks. On the other
hand, the appellee presented specimen signature cards of the appellant, taken
at various years, namely, in 1976, 1979 and 1981 (Exhibits "1", "2", "3" and
"7"), showing variances in the appellant's unquestioned signatures. The
evidence further shows that the appellee, as soon as it was informed by the
appellant about his questioned signatures, sought to borrow the questioned
checks from the appellant for purposes of 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 sufficient
specimen signatures. 15 (15)

Moreover, petitioner's contention that Manila Bank was remiss in the

exercise of its duty as drawee lacks factual basis. Consistently, the CA and the
RTC found that Manila Bank employees exercised due diligence in cashing the
checks. The bank's employees in the present case did not have a hint as to
Eugenio's modus operandi because she was a regular customer of the bank, having
been designated by petitioner himself to transact in his behalf. According to the
appellate court, the employees of the bank exercised due diligence in the
performance of their duties. Thus, it found that:

The evidence on both sides indicates that TMBC's employees

exercised due diligence before encashing the checks. Its verifiers first verified
the drawer's signatures thereon as against his specimen signature cards, and
when in doubt, the verifier went further, such as by referring to a more
experienced verifier for further verification. In some instances the verifier
made a confirmation by calling the depositor by phone. It is only after taking
such precautionary measures that the subject checks were given to the teller
for payment.

Of course it is possible that the verifiers of TMBC might have made a

mistake in failing to detect any forgery — if indeed there was. However, a
mistake is not equivalent to negligence if they were honest mistakes. In the
instant case, we believe and so hold that if there were mistakes, the same
were not deliberate, since the bank took all the precautions. 16(16)

As borne by the records, it was petitioner, not the bank, who was negligent.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 7
 those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would
do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do.
17(17) In the present case, it appears that petitioner accorded his secretary unusual
degree of trust and unrestricted access to his credit cards, passbooks, check books,
bank statements, including custody and possession of cancelled checks and
reconciliation of accounts. Said the Court of Appeals on this matter:

Moreover, the appellant had introduced his secretary to the bank for
purposes of reconciliation of his account, through a letter dated July 14, 1980
(Exhibit "8"). Thus, the said secretary became a familiar figure in the bank.
What is worse, whenever the bank verifiers call the office of the appellant, it
is the same secretary who answers and confirms the checks.

The trouble is, the appellant had put so much trust and confidence in
the said secretary, by entrusting not only his credit cards with her but also his
checkbook with blank checks. He also entrusted to her the verification and
reconciliation of his account. Further adding to his injury was the fact that
while the bank was sending him the monthly Statements of Accounts, he was
not personally checking the same. His testimony did not indicate that he was
out of the country during the period covered by the checks. Thus, he had all
the opportunities to verify his account as well as the cancelled checks issued
thereunder — month after month. But he did not, until his partner asked him
whether he had entrusted his credit card to his secretary because the said
partner had seen her use the same. It was only then that he was minded to
verify the records of his account. 18(18)

The abovecited findings are binding upon the reviewing court. We stress the
rule that the factual findings of a trial court, especially when affirmed by the
appellate court, are binding upon us 19(19) and entitled to utmost respect 20(20)
and even finality. We find no palpable error that would warrant a reversal of the
appellate court's assessment of facts anchored upon the evidence on record. SCHIcT

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(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
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 8
 based on the bank statements sent to him regularly. In view of Article 2179 of the
New Civil Code, 22(22) when the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate
and proximate cause of his injury, no recovery could be had for damages.

Petitioner further contends that under Section 23 of the Negotiable

Instruments Law a forged check is inoperative, and that Manila Bank had no
authority to pay the forged checks. True, it is a rule that when a signature is forged
or made without the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, the
check is wholly inoperative. No right to retain the instrument, or to give a
discharge therefor, or to enforce payment thereof against any party, can be
acquired through or under such signature. However, the rule does provide for an
exception, namely: "unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such
right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority." In the instant
case, it is the exception that applies. In our view, petitioner is precluded from
setting up the forgery, assuming there is forgery, due to his own negligence in
entrusting to his secretary his credit cards and checkbook including the verification
of his statements of account.

Petitioner's reliance on Associated Bank vs. Court of Appeals 23(23) and

Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. CA 24(24) to buttress his contention that
respondent Manila Bank as the collecting or last endorser generally suffers the loss
because it has the duty to ascertain the genuineness of all prior endorsements is
misplaced. In the cited cases, the fact of forgery was not in issue. In the present
case, the fact of forgery was not established with certainty. In those cited cases, the
collecting banks were held to be negligent for failing to observe precautionary
measures to detect the forgery. In the case before us, both courts below uniformly
found that Manila Bank's personnel diligently performed their duties, having
compared the signature in the checks from the specimen signatures on record and
satisfied themselves that it was petitioner's.

On the second issue, the fact that Manila Bank had filed a case for estafa
against Eugenio would not estop it from asserting the fact that forgery has not been
clearly established. Petitioner cannot hold private respondent in estoppel for the
latter is not the actual party to the criminal action. In a criminal action, the State is
the plaintiff, for the commission of a felony is an offense against the State. 25(25)
Thus, under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court the complaint or
information filed in court is required to be brought in the name of the "People of
the Philippines." 26(26)

Further, as petitioner himself stated in his petition, respondent bank filed

the estafa case against Eugenio on the basis of petitioner's own affidavit, 27(27) but
without admitting that he had any personal knowledge of the alleged forgery. It is,
therefore, easy to understand that the filing of the estafa case by respondent bank
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 9
 was a last ditch effort to salvage its ties with the petitioner as a valuable client, by
bolstering the estafa case which he filed against his secretary.

All told, we find no reversible error that can be ascribed to the Court of
Appeals. AaIDHS

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The

assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 28, 1999 in CA-G.R. CV
No. 47942, is AFFIRMED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Acting C.J., Mendoza, Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ.,

concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 26-30.
2. Also spelled as "Catherine" in some parts of the record.
3. Rollo, p. 26.
4. TSN, October 6, 1983, p. 58.
5. Rollo, pp. 108-109.
6. Id. at 27.
7. Ibid.
8. Id. at 30.
9. Id. at 10.
10. Id. at 14.
11. Id. at 15.
12. Id. at 17.
13. Sec. 23. Forged signature, effect of. When a signature is forged or made without
the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly
inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor,
or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through
or under such signature, unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such
right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.
14. Rollo, p. 49.
15. Id. at 28.
16. Id. at 29.
17. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 641, 657 (2000).
18. Supra, note 16.
19. Lorenzana vs. People, 353 SCRA 396, 403 (2001).
20. Ong vs. CA, 272 SCRA 725, 730 (1997).
21. Supra, note 17 at 659.
22. Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 10
 cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. . . .
23. 252 SCRA 620, 633 (1996).
24. 269 SCRA 695, 703-710 (1997).
25. Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65, 100 (1999).
26. SEC. 2. The complaint or information. — The complaint or information shall be in
writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who
appear to be responsible for the offense involved.
27. Rollo, p. 9.

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 11
 Endnotes

1 (Popup - Popup)
1. Rollo, pp. 26-30.

2 (Popup - Popup)
2. Also spelled as "Catherine" in some parts of the record.

3 (Popup - Popup)
3. Rollo, p. 26.

4 (Popup - Popup)
4. TSN, October 6, 1983, p. 58.

5 (Popup - Popup)
5. Rollo, pp. 108-109.

6 (Popup - Popup)
6. Id. at 27.

7 (Popup - Popup)
7. Ibid.

8 (Popup - Popup)
8. Id. at 30.

9 (Popup - Popup)
9. Id. at 10.

10 (Popup - Popup)

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 12
 10. Id. at 14.

11 (Popup - Popup)
11. Id. at 15.

12 (Popup - Popup)
12. Id. at 17.

13 (Popup - Popup)
13. Sec. 23. Forged signature, effect of. When a signature is forged or made without
the authority of the person whose signature it purports to be, it is wholly
inoperative, and no right to retain the instrument, or to give a discharge therefor,
or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto, can be acquired through
or under such signature, unless the party against whom it is sought to enforce such
right is precluded from setting up the forgery or want of authority.

14 (Popup - Popup)
14. Rollo, p. 49.

15 (Popup - Popup)
15. Id. at 28.

16 (Popup - Popup)
16. Id. at 29.

17 (Popup - Popup)
17. Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Court of Appeals, 326 SCRA 641, 657 (2000).

18 (Popup - Popup)
18. Supra, note 16.

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 13
 19 (Popup - Popup)
19. Lorenzana vs. People, 353 SCRA 396, 403 (2001).

20 (Popup - Popup)
20. Ong vs. CA, 272 SCRA 725, 730 (1997).

21 (Popup - Popup)
21. Supra, note 17 at 659.

22 (Popup - Popup)
22. Art. 2179. When the plaintiff's own negligence was the immediate and proximate
cause of his injury, he cannot recover damages. . . .

23 (Popup - Popup)
23. 252 SCRA 620, 633 (1996).

24 (Popup - Popup)
24. 269 SCRA 695, 703-710 (1997).

25 (Popup - Popup)
25. Binay vs. Sandiganbayan, 316 SCRA 65, 100 (1999).

26 (Popup - Popup)
26. SEC. 2. The complaint or information. — The complaint or information shall be in
writing, in the name of the People of the Philippines and against all persons who
appear to be responsible for the offense involved.

27 (Popup - Popup)
27. Rollo, p. 9.

Copyright 1994-2018 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. Jurisprudence 1901 to 2018 First Release 14