Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182210 2015-10-05	PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment carries the burden of proving it.[70] Indeed, once the existence of an indebtedness is established by evidence, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment rests with the debtor.[71] After the debtor introduces evidence of payment, the burden of going forward with the evidence - as distinct from the general burden of proof - again shifts to the creditor, who then labors under a duty to produce evidence to show nonpayment.[72]
	GR No. 205590 2015-09-02	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. GAYAM. PAS IMIO VELASCO JR., J.
Just as settled is the rule that the plaintiff in civil cases must rely on strength of his or her own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the defendant. In the case at bench, this means that on Pasimio rests the burden of proof and the onus to produce the required quantum of evidence to support her cause/s of action.[26]
	GR No. 200013 2015-01-14	BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO v. SPS. VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In any event, 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.[28]
	GR No. 180144 2014-09-24	LEONARDO BOGNOT v. RRI LENDING CORPORATION BRION, J.
Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it;[17] the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment, rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment.[18] Indeed, once the existence of an indebtedness is duly established by evidence, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation has been discharged by payment rests on the debtor.[19]
	GR No. 183860 2014-01-15	RODOLFO LABORTE v. PAGSANJAN TOURISM CONSUMERS’ COOPERATIVE REYES, J.
The Court notes the CA's ruling that the closure of the business is a factual matter which need not be reviewed by the Court under Rule 45. The Court has consistently held that as a general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers questions of law only. The rule, however, admits of exceptions, subject to the following exceptions, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[57] After a careful review and based on the evidence on record, the Court finds cogent reason to deviate from the general rule, warranting a reversal of the decision of the CA.