4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly dismissed and the factual findings of the Court of Appeals be sustained. The grounds set out in the petition are: 1. The findings of facts of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are conflicting hence, an examination by this Honorable Court of the evidence on record is in order. There is an imperative need for this Honorable Court to exercise its power of supervision and review of the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals as an exception to the rule (Solidbank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91494, July 14, 1995) because the Court of Appeals for no plausible reason at all had completely substituted its findings of fact in place of the well-founded findings of fact made by the trial court. It is a serious departure from the well-accepted rules of procedure. 2. There is preponderance of evidence to show that respondent bank connived with third persons to defraud petitioner, hence, it should be held liable for reimbursement with interest and damages. 3. The application of the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" by the Honorable Court of Appeals is not in accord with law and the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court. The Honorable Court of Appeals has so far departed from the accepted principles in the exercise of judicial discretion as to call for an exercise of the power of review and supervision of this Honorable Court.[20] Settled is the rule that where the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are at variance this Court will review the evidence on record in order to arrive at the correct findings.[21] Our evaluation of the numerous testimonies and documentary evidence persuades us that the findings of the Court of Appeals are well-founded and merit the dismissal of the instant petition. The determinative issue in this case, as phrased out in the instant petition, is whether petitioner has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that respondent bank connived with private respondents and third party defendants Papercon and Tom Pek in allowing the withdrawals from Current Account No. 12-2009, knowing these to be unauthorized by petitioner, and with the purpose of defrauding him. A review of the complaint filed before the RTC, however, indicates that petitioner originally sued upon an allegation of negligence on the part of respondent bank's officers and employees in allowing the said withdrawals.[22] Under either theory of fraud or negligence, it is incumbent upon petitioner to show that the withdrawals were not authorized by him. If he is unable to do so, his allegations of fraud or negligence are unsubstantiated and the presumption that he authorized the said withdrawals will apply. Petitioner's allegation that he did not authorize the opening of the current account and https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/50982 6/14