Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH OF GOD v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 181444 2013-07-17	BOBBY “ABEL” AVELINO Y BULAWAN v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On appeal are the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02297 which affirmed petitioner's conviction for murder in Criminal Case No. 01-189130,[2] and the CA's Resolution[3] denying his motion for reconsideration.
	GR No. 174376 2012-09-12	ZOSIMA IN CORPORATED v. LILIA SALIMBAGAT BRION, J.
In civil cases, the rule is that the party carrying the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence,[12] i.e., by evidence that is of greater weight, or more convincing, than that which is offered in opposition to it.[13]
	GR No. 188484 2010-12-06	SALUD GEPIGA VDA. DE SOCO v. FERMINA SOCO VDA. DE BARBON CARPIO MORALES, J.
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish its claim or cause of action by preponderance of evidence,[19] "evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."[20]
	GR No. 172822 2009-12-18	MOF COMPANY v. SHIN YANG BROKERAGE CORPORATION DEL CASTILLO, J.
In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence,[18] which means evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it.[19] Here, MOF failed to meet the required quantum of proof. Other than presenting the bill of lading, which, at most, proves that the carrier acknowledged receipt of the subject cargo from the shipper and that the consignee named is to shoulder the freightage, MOF has not adduced any other credible evidence to strengthen its cause of action. It did not even present any witness in support of its allegation that it was Shin Yang which furnished all the details indicated in the bill of lading and that Shin Yang consented to shoulder the shipment costs. There is also nothing in the records which would indicate that Shin Yang was an agent of Halla Trading Co. or that it exercised any act that would bind it as a named consignee. Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the suit for failure of petitioner to establish its cause against respondent.
	GR No. 154276 2007-09-28	CONRADO CUYUGAN v. RODOLFO SIASOCO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In summary, the petitioner failed to discharge his burden to establish his claim in a civil case by preponderance of evidence.[19] By "preponderance of evidence is meant simply evidence which is of greater weight, or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."[20]