Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 154885 2008-03-24	DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS VELASCO JR., J.
Correlatively, Diesel, obviously having in mind the disputable presumption of regularity, correctly argues that highly specialized agencies are presumed to have the necessary technical expertise in their line of authority. In other words, the members of the Arbitral Tribunal of the CIAC have in their favor the presumption of possessing the necessary qualifications and competence exacted by law. A party in whose favor the legal presumption exists may rely on and invoke such legal presumption to establish a fact in issue. One need not introduce evidence to prove that the fact for a presumption is prima facie proof of the fact presumed.[20]
	GR NO. 150157 2007-01-25	MAURICIO MANLICLIC v. MODESTO CALAUNAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is elementary that an objection shall be made at the time when an alleged inadmissible document is offered in evidence; otherwise, the objection shall be treated as waived, since the right to object is merely a privilege which the party may waive. Thus, a failure to except to the evidence because it does not conform to the statute is a waiver of the provisions of the law. Even assuming ex gratia argumenti that these documents are inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account of failure to object thereto, the same may be admitted and considered as sufficient to prove the facts therein asserted.[24] Hearsay evidence alone may be insufficient to establish a fact in a suit but, when no objection is made thereto, it is, like any other evidence, to be considered and given the importance it deserves.[25]
	GR NO. 163915 2006-10-16	ASIAN CONSTRUCTION v. COMFAC CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
The rule is that failure to object to the offered evidence renders it admissible,[6] and the court cannot, on its own, disregard such evidence. We note that ASIAKONSTRUCT's counsel of record before the trial court, Atty. Bernard Dy, who actively participated in the initial stages of the case stopped attending the hearings when COMFAC was about to end its presentation. Thus, ASIAKONSTRUCT could not object to COMFAC's offer of evidence nor present evidence in its defense; ASIAKONSTRUCT was deemed by the trial court to have waived its chance to do so.