Lawyerly

GR No. 208113

2015-12-02

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Petitioner's claim that she was required to sign two (2) one-half sheets of paper and a trust receipt in blank[31] during her transactions with respondent, which she allegedly failed to retrieve after paying her obligations,[32] is a bare allegation that cannot be given credence. It is well-settled that "[h]e who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence."[33]

GR No. 207134

2015-06-16

AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA v. COMELEC

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

On the alleged irregularities and glitches in the PCOS machines resulting in non-transmittal of election returns, no competent evidence had been presented by petitioner in support of its allegations. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation,[18] and that mere allegation is not evidence.[19]

GR No. 199780

2014-09-24

GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. JOSE M. CAPACITE

BRION, J.

The rule is that the party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.[16] Proof of direct causal connection is not, however, indispensably required. The law merely requires substantial evidence such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that the claimant's employment contributed, even if to a small degree, to the development of the disease.[17] Thus, there is no requirement that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of a claimant's illness for the latter to be entitled to the benefits provided for.[18] However, it is important to note that adequate proof must be presented to substantiate the claim for death benefits.

GR No. 161151

2014-03-24

BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO

BERSAMIN, J.

Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.[10] It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence.[11] Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove.[12] In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side.[13] The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.[14]

GR No. 170598

2013-10-09

FAR EAST BANK v. ROBERT MAR CHANTE

BERSAMIN, J.

The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.[13] Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[14]

GR Nos. 180631-33

2012-02-22

PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL COLLEGES OF PHILIPPINES

MENDOZA, J.

The Court also finds nothing improper in the deletion by the CA of the award of actual damages in favor of DPCC. Actual or compensatory damages means the adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and for profits the obligee failed to obtain. To be entitled to actual or compensatory damages, it is basic that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[56] Equally vital to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, such loss must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[57] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming it[58] who, in turn, should present the best evidence available in support of his claim. It could include sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature pertaining to the items he is seeking to recover. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[59] Moreover, a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof.[60] Thus, courts are required to state the factual bases of the award.[61]

GR No. 184215

2011-02-09

OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO

PEREZ, J.

Conformably with the foregoing provision, the rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered.[43] In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[44] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same[45] who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[46] Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof,[47] courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award.[48]

GR No. 152266

2010-07-02

HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA

PERALTA, J.

In Luxuria Homes, Inc., v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court held that a judgment by default against a defendant does not imply a waiver of rights, except that of being heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff, because the codal section requires the latter to adduce his evidence in support of his allegations as an indispensable condition before final judgment could be given in his favor. Nor could it be interpreted as an admission by the defendant that the plaintiff's causes of action finds support in the law, or that the latter is entitled to the relief prayed for.

GR NO. 147923

2007-10-26

JIMMY T. GO v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO

VELASCO, JR., J.

Second, the other two (2) grounds raised by petitioner are also baseless. We reiterate the age-old rule in civil cases that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[48] Verily, petitioner has not shown substantial proof to bolster these allegations. It is quite revealing what was pointed out by Judge Felix in his December 16, 1999 Order, as quoted by the appellate court, that the allegation of respondent's counsel saying to petitioner that "Amin na si Judge" first came out only in petitioner's second supplemental motion with manifestation dated September 7, 1999. If it was indeed uttered by respondent's counsel, such would have been immediately stated in the prior pleadings of petitioner: the urgent motion for reconsideration dated August 26, 1999 and supplemental motion with manifestation dated August 31, 1999. Besides, in a string of cases, this Court has said that bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice.[49]

GR NO. 169698

2006-11-29

LUPO ATIENZA v. YOLANDA DE CASTRO

GARCIA, J.

The applicable law being settled, we now remind the petitioner that here, as in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense. The petitioner as plaintiff below is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[14] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[15]

GR No. 124899

2004-03-30

RENATO C. SALVADOR v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Salvador supplied the materials for the construction of the Project.[30] Salvador would thus be in the best position to provide the actual increases in the prices of the materials. Salvador also alleged that the prices of construction materials rose substantially since the Project began in July 1990. The rule is that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[31] Salvador never presented receipts, billings from suppliers or similar documents substantiating his claim. Indeed, Salvador's obdurate refusal to provide the simple details required by the Contract puzzles the Court.

GR No. 150611

2003-06-10

JACINTO SAGUID v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[38] This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[39] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[40]

	GR No. 208113 2015-12-02	DOLORES DIAZ v. PEOPLE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Petitioner's claim that she was required to sign two (2) one-half sheets of paper and a trust receipt in blank[31] during her transactions with respondent, which she allegedly failed to retrieve after paying her obligations,[32] is a bare allegation that cannot be given credence. It is well-settled that "[h]e who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence."[33]
	GR No. 207134 2015-06-16	AKSYON MAGSASAKA-PARTIDO TINIG NG MASA v. COMELEC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the alleged irregularities and glitches in the PCOS machines resulting in non-transmittal of election returns, no competent evidence had been presented by petitioner in support of its allegations. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation,[18] and that mere allegation is not evidence.[19]
	GR No. 199780 2014-09-24	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. JOSE M. CAPACITE BRION, J.
The rule is that the party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.[16] Proof of direct causal connection is not, however, indispensably required. The law merely requires substantial evidence such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion that the claimant's employment contributed, even if to a small degree, to the development of the disease.[17] Thus, there is no requirement that the employment be the sole factor in the growth, development or acceleration of a claimant's illness for the latter to be entitled to the benefits provided for.[18] However, it is important to note that adequate proof must be presented to substantiate the claim for death benefits.
	GR No. 161151 2014-03-24	BJDC CONSTRUCTION v. NENA E. LANUZO BERSAMIN, J.
Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law.[10] It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it because a mere allegation is not evidence.[11] Generally, the party who denies has no burden to prove.[12] In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who would be defeated if no evidence is given on either side.[13] The burden of proof is on the plaintiff if the defendant denies the factual allegations of the complaint in the manner required by the Rules of Court, but it may rest on the defendant if he admits expressly or impliedly the essential allegations but raises affirmative defense or defenses, which if proved, will exculpate him from liability.[14]
	GR No. 170598 2013-10-09	FAR EAST BANK v. ROBERT MAR CHANTE BERSAMIN, J.
The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.[13] Verily, the party who asserts, not he who denies, must prove.[14]
	GR Nos. 180631-33 2012-02-22	PHILIPPINE CHARTER INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CENTRAL COLLEGES OF PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
The Court also finds nothing improper in the deletion by the CA of the award of actual damages in favor of DPCC. Actual or compensatory damages means the adequate compensation for pecuniary loss suffered and for profits the obligee failed to obtain. To be entitled to actual or compensatory damages, it is basic that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.[56] Equally vital to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, such loss must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[57] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming it[58] who, in turn, should present the best evidence available in support of his claim. It could include sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature pertaining to the items he is seeking to recover. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[59] Moreover, a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof.[60] Thus, courts are required to state the factual bases of the award.[61]
	GR No. 184215 2011-02-09	OCEANEERING CONTRACTORS v. NESTOR N. BARRETTO PEREZ, J.
Conformably with the foregoing provision, the rule is long and well settled that there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered for the same to be recovered.[43] In addition to the fact that the amount of loss must be capable of proof, it must also be actually proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof or the best evidence obtainable.[44] The burden of proof of the damage suffered is, consequently, imposed on the party claiming the same[45] who should adduce the best evidence available in support thereof, like sales and delivery receipts, cash and check vouchers and other pieces of documentary evidence of the same nature. In the absence of corroborative evidence, it has been held that self-serving statements of account are not sufficient basis for an award of actual damages.[46] Corollary to the principle that a claim for actual damages cannot be predicated on flimsy, remote, speculative, and insubstantial proof,[47] courts are, likewise, required to state the factual bases of the award.[48]
	GR No. 152266 2010-07-02	HEIRS OF PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. ANGELINA PERONA PERALTA, J.
In Luxuria Homes, Inc., v. Court of Appeals,[25] the Court held that a judgment by default against a defendant does not imply a waiver of rights, except that of being heard and of presenting evidence in his favor. It does not imply admission by the defendant of the facts and causes of action of the plaintiff, because the codal section requires the latter to adduce his evidence in support of his allegations as an indispensable condition before final judgment could be given in his favor. Nor could it be interpreted as an admission by the defendant that the plaintiff's causes of action finds support in the law, or that the latter is entitled to the relief prayed for.
	GR NO. 147923 2007-10-26	JIMMY T. GO v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO VELASCO, JR., J.
Second, the other two (2) grounds raised by petitioner are also baseless. We reiterate the age-old rule in civil cases that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[48] Verily, petitioner has not shown substantial proof to bolster these allegations. It is quite revealing what was pointed out by Judge Felix in his December 16, 1999 Order, as quoted by the appellate court, that the allegation of respondent's counsel saying to petitioner that "Amin na si Judge" first came out only in petitioner's second supplemental motion with manifestation dated September 7, 1999. If it was indeed uttered by respondent's counsel, such would have been immediately stated in the prior pleadings of petitioner: the urgent motion for reconsideration dated August 26, 1999 and supplemental motion with manifestation dated August 31, 1999. Besides, in a string of cases, this Court has said that bias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not suffice.[49]
	GR NO. 169698 2006-11-29	LUPO ATIENZA v. YOLANDA DE CASTRO GARCIA, J.
The applicable law being settled, we now remind the petitioner that here, as in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense. The petitioner as plaintiff below is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[14] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[15]
	GR No. 124899 2004-03-30	RENATO C. SALVADOR v. CA CARPIO, J.
Salvador supplied the materials for the construction of the Project.[30] Salvador would thus be in the best position to provide the actual increases in the prices of the materials. Salvador also alleged that the prices of construction materials rose substantially since the Project began in July 1990. The rule is that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[31] Salvador never presented receipts, billings from suppliers or similar documents substantiating his claim. Indeed, Salvador's obdurate refusal to provide the simple details required by the Contract puzzles the Court.
	GR No. 150611 2003-06-10	JACINTO SAGUID v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue. Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[38] This applies with more vigor where, as in the instant case, the plaintiff was allowed to present evidence ex parte. The plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint. Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[39] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[40]

LUXURIA HOMES v. CA