Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OSCAR L. RIVERA v. SERAFIN O.** ROMAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175795 2015-06-22	NORMILITO R. CAGATIN v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
The allegation of petitioner that the allegedly contradicting reports of Dr. Cruz were the result of respondents' malice, bad faith and abuse is not supported by him with substantial evidence. It is consistently held that good faith is always presumed and he who alleges the contrary on his opponent has the burden of proving that the latter acted in bad faith, with malice, or with ill motive.[65] Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof.[66] Although strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation and disability benefits, the seafarer must still prove his claim with substantial evidence, otherwise, injustice will be done to his employer.[67] Other than petitioner's bare allegations, nothing on record supports his assertion of malice and bad faith.
	GR No. 176566 2009-04-16	ELISEO EDUARTE Y. COSCOLLA v. VS.PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Basic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the findings.[7]
	GR NO. 160959 2007-04-04	ANTONIO DIAZ v. DAVAO LIGHT CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a free society, controversies are heard and settled under the rule of law in the forum of the courts of justice. It is one of the virtues of our system of government that a person who feels aggrieved does not have to take the law into his or her hands or resort to the use of force for the vindication of injury. The courts are there to hear and act on the complaint. The right to litigate is an escape valve to relieve the pressures of personal disagreements that might otherwise explode in physical confrontation. It is necessary not only for upholding one's claims when they are unjustly denied but also for the maintenance of peace, if not goodwill, among incipient antagonists. Without the right to litigate, conflicting claims cannot be examined and resolved in accordance with one of the primary purposes of government, which is to provide for a just and orderly society.[134] Hence, the mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution does not render a person liable for malicious prosecution should he or she be unsuccessful, for the law could not have meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.[135]
	GR NO. 148014 2006-12-05	SPS. ANTONIO VIZARRA AND BRENDA LOGATOC VIZARRA v. CONCHITA R. RODRIGUEZ TINGA, J.
As a rule, questions of facts are not to be entertained in this jurisdiction. Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals are in agreement as to the particulars of the case. In such a circumstance, the rule is that their findings on the facts will not be disturbed.[25] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.[26]
	GR NO. 167084 2006-10-31	MONINA PUCAY v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Basic is the rule that factual findings of trial courts, including their assessment of the witnesses' credibility, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the Court of Appeals affirms the findings.[19]
	GR NO. 144320 2006-04-26	NATIVIDAD ARIAGA VDA. DE GURREA v. ENRIQUE SUPLICO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
(1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, could justify a different conclusion.[17]