FACTS:

In 1981, respondent Eric Gan opened a current account with Security Bank and Trust Company (petitioner) at its Soler Branch in Manila. The petitioner alleged that there was an agreement between them wherein respondent would deposit an initial amount in his account and could draw checks as long as there were sufficient funds. He was also permitted to transfer funds from his account to another person's account within the same branch. According to the petitioner, respondent took advantage of this arrangement by depositing checks in his account, withdrawing the funds before they cleared, and transferring them to another account. Due to insufficient funds, these transactions were covered by "debit memos." As a result, respondent accumulated an overdraft or negative balance of P153,757.78.

In 1991, petitioner filed a complaint for a sum of money against respondent for the recovery of the amount owed. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. In their petition to the Supreme Court, petitioner raised various grounds, but the Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioner failed to prove that respondent knowingly incurred the overdraft. The ledger presented as evidence did not establish respondent's consent to the transfer of funds.

(Note: The issues and rulings have been omitted, as per the instructions given.)

ISSUES:

1. Whether petitioner Security Bank and Trust Company has sufficiently proved its cause of action against respondent Eric Gan.

2. Whether the principle of estoppel should be applied against respondent.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The trial court and the Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondent knowingly incurred an overdraft against his account. The entries in the ledger presented by petitioner were not competent evidence to prove that respondent consented to the transfers of funds. The claim that respondent availed of a special arrangement to transfer funds from his account was a bare allegation that was never substantiated. The Court also stated that it is not its function to re-examine and weigh anew the evidence presented by the parties.

PRINCIPLES:

• Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court.

• Factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the Supreme Court when supported by the evidence on record.

• Entries in the course of business, like ledger entries, may be received as prima facie evidence if they were made in the regular course of business, and it was the regular course of business to make the entries at or near the time of the act, condition, or event recorded.