This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2002-09-05 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| therefore admissible public documents, as respondents themselves would stipulate.[55] "In the case of public documents, the mere production of an admissible copy is generally sufficient to satisfy any requirement of proof of due execution of the document, in accordance with the maxim omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta."[56] Accordingly, respondent Garcia is presumed to be the author of Exhs. "M," "N" and "O" purposely to falsify or cover up the fact that she was not reporting for work for two-and-a-half (2-1/2) months.[57] While this presumption may be rebutted, it may only be done by clear, strong and convincing evidence.[58] Respondent Garcia was not able to rebut this presumption. Her defense was mere unsubstantiated denial[59] which of course is a weak defense. Furthermore, if we are to compare the signatures on Exhs. "M," "N" and "O" with the admitted standard signatures | |||||