This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-18 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| xxx Public policy and sound practice demand that at the risk of occasional errors, judgment of courts should become final at some definite date. The Court frowns upon frivolous appeals and any dilatory maneuver calculated to defeat or frustrate the ends of justice and fair play (Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals) [60] . | |||||
|
2005-04-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We likewise sustain the trial court and the Court of Appeals concerning the testimonies of Clerma Domingo, Leonora, and Jose to the effect that they saw Bruno affixing his signature to the questioned deed.[22] They were unrebutted. Genuineness of a handwriting may be proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone who actually saw the person write or affix his signature on a document. Petitioner has shown no reason why the ruling made by the trial court on the credibility of the respondent's witnesses below should be disturbed by us. Findings by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded the greatest respect, and even finality by appellate courts, since the former is in a better position to observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[23] | |||||