This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-08-24 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| In Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc. v. Trans-Asia Shipping Lines, Inc.,[10] the Court regarded as proper an award of 10% of the insurance proceeds as attorney's fees. Such amount is fair considering the length of time that has passed in prosecuting the claim.[11] Pursuant to the Court's ruling in Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[12] a 12% interest per annum from the finality of judgment until full satisfaction of the claim should likewise be imposed, the interim period equivalent to a forbearance of credit. | |||||
|
2009-09-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioner asserts that Uy had known of her previous marriage as far back as 1978; hence, prescription began to run from that time. Note that the party who raises a fact as a matter of defense has the burden of proving it. The defendant or accused is obliged to produce evidence in support of its defense; otherwise, failing to establish the same, it remains self-serving.[12] Thus, for petitioner's defense of prescription to prosper, it was incumbent upon her to adduce evidence that as early as the year 1978, Uy already obtained knowledge of her previous marriage. | |||||
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The plaintiff in a civil case has the burden of proof as he alleges the affirmative of the issue. However, in the course of trial in a civil case, once plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to defendant to controvert plaintiff's prima facie case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of plaintiff.[99] The party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[100] The concept of "preponderance of evidence" refers to evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it;[101] in the last analysis, it means probability of truth. It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[102] Rule 133, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the guidelines for determining preponderance of evidence, thus:In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number. | |||||
|
2008-12-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that in the course of trial in a civil case, once the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case in his favor, the duty or the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant to controvert the plaintiff's prima facie case; otherwise, a verdict must be returned in favor of the plaintiff.[48] In the instant case, respondent's indebtedness to petitioner has been established. However, respondent failed to meet its burden of proving payment. Hence, judgment must be rendered in petitioner's favor. | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| [24] G.R. No. 151890,June 20, 2006, 491 SCRA 411. | |||||