4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The Court, however, believes that since what is at issue here is whether petitioner issued the questioned checks the essential comparison should be between the signatures appearing on the checks and the specimen signatures on the depositor's card. Such is the normal process followed in verifying signatures for purposes of bank withdrawals. Considering that the depositor's card was not produced in evidence in the instant case, resort may thus be made to such other documents as would bear the authentic signature of petitioner.[43] The record is replete with documents bearing petitioner's signature, among them, his residence certificate[44], alien certificate of registration[45], investor's passport[46], tourist's passport[47], and the application forms for an RCBC current account[48]. From our examination of these records we find no significant disparity between the signatures on the checks and those on the abovesaid documents, and will not risk a finding of forgery where the same had not been clearly alleged nor proved. Forgery, as any other mechanism of fraud, must be proven clearly and convincingly, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[49] On the other hand, private respondents have presented evidence that petitioner did sign and issue these checks. The testimony of Catalino Reyes that petitioner told him to prepare the checks, and that he saw petitioner sign these checks and give them to Tom Pek, stands unrebutted. There is thus no evidence to demonstrate that respondent bank and respondents Papercon and Tom Pek colluded to defraud petitioner of his money. What the evidence in fact establishes is that the opening of the account and the withdrawals were authorized by petitioner, and that the signatures appearing on the questioned checks were petitioner's. Petitioner, however, insists that respondent bank acted with negligence in opening Current Account No. 12-2009 without properly verifying the identity of the depositor and in contravention of sound and well-recognized banking procedures. The petition capitalizes on the following purported irregularities surrounding the opening of the account: (1) the alleged depositor never appeared at the bank; (2) the person who transacted for the alleged depositor was not shown to have been authorized for that purpose; (3) the application form and other documents required to open the account were brought out of the bank premises; and (4) the application form, when submitted, was not properly accomplished, but was left blank on most of the required details.[50] The arguments are unmeritorious for failure to show that such irregularities attending the opening of the account resulted in the unauthorized withdrawal of petitioner's money. The evidence stands unrebutted that petitioner instructed the opening of the said account and signed the pertinent application forms. Quite contrary to petitioner's insinuations of fraud or negligence, the evidence indicates that the reason why respondent bank relaxed its rules in handling petitioner's application was because, in addition to having been referred by a well-known client,[51] petitioner was in a hurry to have the remittance credited to his account.[52] The person who alleges fraud or negligence must prove it, because the general presumption is that men act with care and prudence. Good faith is always presumed https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50982 9/14