This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Although not exclusive, a receipt of payment is the best evidence of the fact of payment.[57] We held that the fact of payment may be established not only by documentary evidence but also by parol evidence.[58] | |||||
|
2012-12-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Well settled also is the rule that a receipt of payment is the best evidence of the fact of payment.[17] In Monfort v. Aguinaldo,[18] the receipts of payment, although not exclusive, were deemed to be the best evidence. Private respondents, however, could not present any receipt since they alleged that their payments were made through salary deductions and the payrolls which supposedly contained such deductions were in petitioner's possession which had not been produced. In order to prove their allegations of refund, private respondents submitted the affidavits of Messrs. Cordova and Meneses, Jr., which we successively quote in part, to wit: Mr. Cordova states: | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We are inclined to give more credence to respondent's evidence, that is, the acknowledgment receipt showing the amount paid by petitioner and received by respondent. A receipt is a written and signed acknowledgment that money or goods have been delivered.[16] Although a receipt is not conclusive evidence, an exhaustive review of the records of this case fails to disclose any other evidence sufficient and strong enough to overturn the acknowledgment embodied in respondent's receipt as to the amount it actually received from petitioner. Having failed to adduce sufficient rebuttal evidence, petitioner is bound by the contents of the receipt issued by respondent. The subject receipt remains as the primary or best evidence.[17] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| maintain not only legal proficiency but also a very high standard of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing in order that the people's faith and confidence in the legal system are ensured.[25] Thus, he must conduct himself, whether in dealing with his clients or with the public at large, as to be beyond reproach at all times.[26] Any violation of the high moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition on the attorney of the appropriate penalty, including suspension and disbarment.[27] | |||||