Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TURADIO C. DOMINGO v. JOSE C. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176219 2008-12-23	RENTOKIL PHILIPPINES v. LEILANI D. SANCHEZ TINGA, J.
In any case, the Court is not bound by the findings and observations of the external auditor. In the same way that courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of expert witnesses,[19] this Court may disregard the conclusions and statements of the external auditor and make its own independent findings based on the facts of the case.
	GR No. 170738 2008-09-12	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals gave credence to the testimonies of Marcopper President Atty. Teodulo C. Gabor, Jr. and Mr. Teodoro G. Bernardino, a member of the Board of Directors of Marcopper. True, findings by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded the greatest respect, and even finality by the appellate courts, since the former is in a better position to observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. [25] However, in this case, not only was there inadequate evidence to prove Marcopper's assertions, the lower courts also overlooked certain significant facts which contradict the assertions of Marcopper's witnesses.
	GR NO. 160729 2007-07-27	JOSEFINA COGTONG v. KYORITSU INTERNATIONAL QUISUMBING, J.
In a recent case, this Court held that passage of time and a person's increase in age may have a decisive influence in his handwriting characteristics.[9] In order to bring about an accurate comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature.[10] The standards should, if possible, have been made at the same time as the suspected document. The standards should embrace the time of the origin of the document, so that one part comes from the time before the origin and one part from the time after the origin.[11]
	GR NO. 160843 2006-07-11	CHINA BANKING CORPORATION v. MARIA G. LAGON QUISUMBING, J.
Finally, with respect to the credibility of the handwriting expert, courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.[12] The courts may place whatever weight they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case.[13]