Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NORTHWEST AIRLINES v. STEVEN P. CHIONG

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 165166 2012-08-15	CHARLES GOTARDO v. DIVINA BULING BRION, J.
Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and to anchor a conclusion based on these parts. "In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered."[43] Evidently, the totality of the respondent's testimony positively and convincingly shows that no real inconsistency exists. The respondent has consistently asserted that she started intimate sexual relations with the petitioner sometime in September 1993.[44]
	GR No. 188072 2011-10-19	EMERITA M. DE GUZMAN v. ANTONIO M. TUMOLVA MENDOZA, J.
As regards the award of attorney's fees, the Court upholds De Guzman's entitlement to reasonable attorney's fees, although it recognizes that it is a sound policy not to set a premium on the right to litigate.[23] It must be recalled that De Guzman's repeated demands for the repair of the fence or the payment of damages by way of compensation, were not heeded by the Contractor. The latter's unjust refusal to satisfy De Guzman's valid, just and demandable claim constrained her to litigate and incur expenses to protect her interest. Article 2208 of the Civil Code, thus, provides: Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
	GR No. 176229 2011-10-19	HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. "In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered."[46] Also, where there is nothing in the records which would show a motive or reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, identification should be given full weight. Here, petitioner presented no evidence or anything to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution, Cinco, was moved by any improper motive, hence her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.
	GR No. 156302 2009-04-07	HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE v. MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It should be remembered that respondent MICI readily admits that it is the insurer of the truck that hit and killed George, except that it insists that its liability under the insurance policy is limited. As the party asserting its limited liability, respondent MICI then has the burden of evidence to establish its claim. In civil cases, the party that alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to prove its claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.[59] Regrettably, respondent MICI failed to discharge this burden.[60] The Court cannot rely on mere allegations of limited liability sans proof.