This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-24 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies v. The Court of Appeals and Associated Bank,[16] it was stressed that duplicate originals were admissible as evidence. Pertinent portions of the said decision read: Respondent court is of the view that the above provision must be construed to mean the original copy of the document evidencing the credit and not its duplicate, thus: | |||||
|
2014-09-24 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the cited provision merely raises a presumption, not of payment, but of the renunciation of the credit where more convincing evidence would be required than what normally would be called for to prove payment.[21] Thus, reliance by the petitioner on the legal presumption to prove payment is misplaced. | |||||
|
2006-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rule, however, is not iron-clad. This much was elucidated by this Court in Trans-Pacific Industrial Supplies, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[37] to wit:To determine the admissibility or non-admissibility of an offer to compromise, the circumstances of the case and the intent of the party making the offer should be considered. Thus, if a party denies the existence of a debt but offers to pay the same for the purpose of buying peace and avoiding litigation, the offer of settlement is inadmissible. If in the course thereof, the party making the offer admits the existence of an indebtedness combined with a proposal to settle the claim amicably, then, the admission is admissible to prove such indebtedness (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 5, p. 233 [1980 ed.]); Francisco, Rules of Court, Vol. VII, p. 325 [1973 ed.] citing McNiel v. Holbrook, 12 Pac. (US) 84, 9 L. ed., 1009). Indeed, an offer of settlement is an effective admission of a borrower's loan balance (L.M. Handicraft Manufacturing Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 186 SCRA 640 [1990]. x x x.[38] Similarly, in the case of Varadero de Manila v. Insular Lumber Co.[39] the Court applied the exception to the general rule. In Varadero' there was neither an expressed nor implied denial of liability, but during the course of the abortive negotiations therein, the defendant expressed a willingness to pay the plaintiff. Finding that there was no denial of liability, and considering that the only question discussed was the amount to be paid, the Court did not apply the rule of exclusion of compromise negotiations. | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The law requires in civil cases that the party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[28] Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required by law.[29] In this case, the burden of proof is on the respondents because they allege an affirmative defense, namely payment.[30] As a rule, one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it.[31] Even where the plaintiff must allege nonpayment, the general rule is that the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove nonpayment. The debtor has the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment.[32] | |||||