This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-12-02 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| In this relation, it should be pointed out that under Section 3 (d), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the legal presumption is that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns. To this, case law dictates that the natural presumption is that one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents and consequences.[36] Further, under Section 3 (p) of the same Rule, it is equally presumed that private transactions have been fair and regular.[37] This behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of a document before he signs and delivers it.[38] The effect of a presumption upon the burden of proof is to create the need of presenting evidence to overcome the prima facie case created, thereby which, if no contrary proof is offered, will prevail.[39] In this case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to controvert these presumptions. Also, respondent's possession of the document pertaining to the obligation strongly buttresses her claim that the same has not been extinguished.[40] Preponderance of evidence only requires that evidence be greater or more convincing than the opposing evidence.[41] All things considered, the evidence in this case clearly preponderates in respondent's favor. | |||||
|
2012-07-09 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| However, while indubitably containing the signatures of both parties, a plain reading of the contents of Exhibit 1 negates any inference as to the nature of the transaction for which the 1,000,000 Yen was received and who between the parties is the obligor and the obligee. What is apparent is a mere written and signed acknowledgment that money was received. There are no terms and conditions found therein from which a right or obligation may be established. Hence, it cannot be considered an actionable document[9] upon which an action or defense may be founded. | |||||
|
2011-10-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In sum, we find petitioner entitled to penalties in the amount of P987.25 per day from August 30, 1990 up to January 7, 1991 (131 days) or a total amount of P129,329.75 for the delay caused by respondent ABB. Finally, we impose interest at the rate of six percent (6%) on the total amount due from the date of filing of the complaint until finality of this Decision. However, from the finality of judgment until full payment of the total award, the interest rate of twelve percent (12%) shall apply.[52] | |||||