Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DONNINA C. HALLEY v. PRINTWELL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 207161 2015-09-08	Y-I LEISURE PHILIPPINES v. JAMES YU MENDOZA, J.
Sangil then testified that MADCI failed to develop the golf course because its properties were taken over by YIL after he allegedly violated the MOA.[17] The lands of MADCI were eventually sold to YICRI for a consideration of P9.3 million, which was definitely lower than their market price.[18] Unfortunately, the case assailing the transfers was dismissed by a trial court in Pampanga.[19]
	GR No. 167052 2015-03-11	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS SECURITIES CORPORATION v. EDGARDO V. GUEVARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As for petitioner's contention that the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated December 19, 2003, copied verbatim or wholesale from respondent's brief, the Court refers to its ruling in Halley v. Printwell, Inc.,[40] thus: It is noted that the petition for review merely generally alleges that starting from its page 5, the decision of the RTC "copied verbatim the allegations of herein Respondents in its Memorandum before the said court," as if "the Memorandum was the draft of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig," but fails to specify either the portions allegedly lifted verbatim from the memorandum, or why she regards the decision as copied. The omission renders the petition for review insufficient to support her contention, considering that the mere similarity in language or thought between Printwell's memorandum and the trial court's decision did not necessarily justify the conclusion that the RTC simply lifted verbatim or copied from the memorandum.
	GR No. 180069 2014-03-05	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. ARTURO P. FRANCO PERALTA, J.
Jurisprudence abounds that, in civil cases, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[8] Even where the plaintiff must allege non-payment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.[9] When the creditor is in possession of the document of credit, he need not prove non-payment for it is presumed.[10] The creditor's possession of the evidence of debt is proof that the debt has not been discharged by payment.[11]