Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ERNESTO MARTIN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194964-65 2016-01-11	UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO v. BANGKO SENTRAL PILIPINAS LEONEN, J.
Presumptions are "inference[s] as to the existence of a fact not actually known, arising from its usual connection with another which is known, or a conjecture based on past experience as to what course human affairs ordinarily take."[95] Presumptions embody values and revealed behavioral expectations under a given set of circumstances.
	GR No. 161151 2014-03-24	BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO BERSAMIN, J.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.[10] It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence.[11] Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove.[12] In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side.[13] The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.[14]
	GR No. 191189 2014-01-29	MANLAR RICE MILL v. LOURDES L. DEYTO DEL CASTILLO, J.
x x x Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. This Court has consistently applied the ancient rule that "if the plaintiff, upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action, fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense."[28]
	GR No. 170598 2013-10-09	FAR EAST BANK v. ROBERT MAR CHANTE BERSAMIN, J.
The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.[13] Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[14]
	GR NO. 166580 2007-02-08	PRUDENTIAL SHIPPING v. EMERLINDA A. STA. RITA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Labor Arbiter further held that a claim arising from employer-employee relationship does not necessarily infer that the relationship should exist at the time the claim is presented. Although the employment may have ceased, the origin of the claim is not altered. According to the Labor Arbiter, the fact that Virgilio's employment had already been terminated when the complaint was filed is of no consequence. He cited this Court's rulings in Martin v. Court of Appeals,[28] and Star Security & Detective Investigation Agency v. Secretary of Labor.[29]