This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| As a final point, it may not be amiss to state that the return of the subject products pursuant to a rescissory action[41] is neither warranted by ACE Foods's claims of breach either with respect to MTCL's breach of its purported "after delivery services" obligations or the defective condition of the products since such claims were not adequately proven in this case. The rule is clear: each party must prove his own affirmative allegation; one who asserts the affirmative of the issue has the burden of presenting at the trial such amount of evidence required by law to obtain a favorable judgment, which in civil cases, is by preponderance of evidence.[42] This, however, ACE Foods failed to observe as regards its allegations of breach. Hence, the same cannot be sustained. | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In his motion for reconsideration, the PSE President cites the cases of National Telecommunications Commission v. Court of Appeals[17] and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Telecommunications Commission[18] in arguing that the Court has already defined the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution.[19] | |||||