This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The CBD did not give credence to respondent's denials, which prevailed over the positive and categorical statement of the complainant. It cited the well-settled rule that positive statement was stronger and attained greater evidentiary weight than negative evidence.[4] Moreover, he did not submit any evidence to support or corroborate his denials and allegations or to refute complainant's evidence. In sum, his claims were merely supported by his allegations, which, by law, were not equivalent to proof.[5] | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Preponderance of evidence means that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.[75] It means evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[76] Under Section 1 of Rule 133, in determining whether or not there is preponderance of evidence, the court may consider the following: (a) all the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) 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; (c) the witnesses' interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same may ultimately appear in the trial; and (d) the number of witnesses, although it does not mean that preponderance is necessarily with the greater number. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The joint affidavits are very solid pieces of evidence in the petitioners' favor. They constitute admissions against interest made by the respondents under oath. An admission against interest is the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute,[37] based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[38] It is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.[39] | |||||
|
2008-07-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| x x x x[21] Uy's admission in his Comment and Memorandum of non-compliance with the foregoing requirements is a judicial admission and an admission against interest[22] combined. A judicial admission binds the person who makes the same.[23] In the same vein, an admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.[24] The rationale for the rule is based on the presumption that no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.[25] Thus, it is fair to presume that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is his fault if it does not.[26] | |||||
|
2008-07-21 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We are not swayed by the lengthy disquisition of MT Vector and Francisco Soriano urging this Court to absolve them from liability. All evidence points to the fact that it was MT Vector's negligent officers and crew which caused it to ram into MV Doña Paz. More so, MT Vector was found to be carrying expired coastwise license and permits and was not properly manned. As the records would also disclose, there is a defect in the ignition system of the vessel, and it was not convincingly shown whether the necessitated repairs were in fact undertaken before the said ship had set to sea. In short, MT Vector was unseaworthy at the time of the mishap. That the said vessel was allowed to set sail when it was, to everyone in the group's knowledge, not fit to do so translates into rashness and imprudence.[24] We reiterate, anew, the rule that findings of fact of the CA are generally binding and conclusive on this Court.[25] While this Court has recognized several exceptions[26] to this rule, none of these exceptions finds application in this case. It bears emphasis also that this Court accords respect to the factual findings of the trial court, especially if affirmed by the CA on appeal. Unless the trial court overlooked substantial matters that would alter the outcome of the case, this Court will not disturb such findings. In any event, we have meticulously reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to depart from the rule.[27] | |||||