Case Digest: VICTORIA J. ILANO v. HON. DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL, et al.

VICTORIA J. ILANO v. HON. DOLORES L. ESPAÑOL, et al.

              Amelia Alonzo is a trusted employee of Victoria Ilano. During those times that Ilano is in the Unied States for medical check-up, Alonzo was entrusted with Ilano‘s Metrobank Check Book which contains both signed and unsigned blank checks.

         A Complaint for Revocation/Cancellation of Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Checks) with Damages and Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against Alonzo et al. before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite. Ilano contends that Alonzo, by means of deceit and abuse of confidence succeeded in procuring Promissory Notes and signed blank checks. Alonzo likewise succeeded in inducing Ilano to sign antedated Promissory Notes. The RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action and failure to allege the ultimate facts of the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court erred in dismissing the complaint

HELD:

While some of the allegations may lack particulars, and are in the form of conclusions of law, the elements of a cause of action are present. For even if some are not stated with particularity, Ilano alleged 1) her legal right not to be bound by the instruments which were bereft of consideration and to which her consent was vitiated; 2) the correlative obligation on the part of the defendants-respondents to respect said right; and 3) the act of the defendants-respondents in procuring her signature on the instruments through “deceit,” “abuse of confidence” “machination,” “fraud,” “falsification,” “forgery,” “defraudation,” and “bad faith,” and “with malice, malevolence and selfish intent.”

With respect to the checks subject of the complaint, it is gathered that, except for Check No. 0084078, they were drawn all against Ilano’s Metrobank Account No. 00703-955536-7 shows that it was dishonored due to “Account Closed.” When Ilano then filed her complaint, all the checks subject hereof which were drawn against the same closed account were already rendered valueless or non-negotiable, hence, Ilano had, with respect to them, no cause of action.

With respect to above-said Check No. 0084078, however, which was drawn against another account of Ilano, albeit the date of issue bears only the year 1999, its validity and negotiable character at the time the complaint was filed was not affected.
It is, however, with respect to the questioned promissory notes that the present petition assumes merit. For, Ilano’s allegations in the complaint relative thereto, even if lacking particularity, does not as priorly stated call for the dismissal of the complaint.