4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly petitioner's contention that the money was transferred by Pacific Banking Corporation to respondent bank through a bank-to-bank transaction. Respondent court was also not convinced by petitioner's allegation that the conversion of the US$100,000.00 and its being deposited in the Shaw Boulevard branch of respondent bank was made without his knowledge and consent. It pointed out that it was petitioner himself who wrote the Shaw Boulevard branch inquiring about the status of his current account; thus, he could not later be heard to maintain that he thought his money was deposited with the head office of respondent bank in Makati. Further contrary to the findings of the trial court, the Court of Appeals determined that the inward remittance of US$100,000.00 was made while petitioner was already in the Philippines. Based on the records of the Bureau of Immigration, petitioner arrived in the country as a tourist on or about January 25, 1979,[14] but subsequently applied for a change of status of admission to special non-immigrant as a foreign investor.[15] Because of this, petitioner's initial argument --- that he could not have authorized the deposit in the Shaw Boulevard branch and the withdrawals therefrom because he was not yet in the country at the time --- could not be believed. Moreover, respondent court found it incredible that petitioner checked on his dollar remittance only in 1985, long after it was sent into the country. As for respondent bank's inability to produce the depositor's card bearing petitioner's specimen signatures, the checkbook requisition slip, and other documents requested by petitioner, respondent court found plausible the explanation of respondent bank that it only holds records for a period of five years after the last transaction on an account was made. It also noted several other inconsistencies in the testimony of petitioner, such as his inability to recall his date of arrival in the country,[16] the date or even the year when he made inquiries with respondent bank,[17] or his presence before the Commission on Immigration and Deportation when he applied for a change of status. [18] Thus, petitioner lost credibility with respondent court which found his testimony to be false on material points and applied the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Hence, the dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision provides: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the court a quo is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Herein defendant/third-party plaintiff and thirdparty defendants are hereby absolved of any liability arising out of this case. Likewise, the third-party complaint is hereby DISMISSED. Costs against plaintiff-appellant. SO ORDERED.[19] Petitioner is now before us seeking the reversal of the above decision, maintaining that the evidence on record preponderated in his favor and was enough to sustain the finding that the opening of Current Account No. 12-2009 and the withdrawals thereon were unauthorized by him and that respondent bank connived with third persons to defraud petitioner. Private respondents, for their part, ask that the petition be https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50982 5/14