This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The CBD did not give credence to respondent's denials, which prevailed over the positive and categorical statement of the complainant. It cited the well-settled rule that positive statement was stronger and attained greater evidentiary weight than negative evidence.[4] Moreover, he did not submit any evidence to support or corroborate his denials and allegations or to refute complainant's evidence. In sum, his claims were merely supported by his allegations, which, by law, were not equivalent to proof.[5] | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| [24] Sadhwani v. Court of Appeals, 346 Phil. 54, 64 (1997). | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, respondent's allegations in her Complaint were enough for the MTCC to acquire jurisdiction over respondent's forcible entry case against petitioner and his co-defendants. However, mere allegation or claim is not proof.[29] Respondent still needs to prove, by preponderance of evidence, the allegations in her Complaint before she could be entitled to the ejectment of petitioner from the property. | |||||
|
2004-02-17 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent has no right to retain or appropriate unilaterally as lawyer's lien,[6] the sum of P250,000.00. As found by IBP Commissioner Maala, there was no agreement between him and complainants that he could retain P250,000.00 as attorney's fees. In fact, he did not adduce any proof of such agreement. His mere allegation or claim is not proof.[7] Obviously, his failure to return the money to complainants upon demand gave rise to the presumption that he misappropriated it in violation of the trust reposed on him.[8] His act of holding on to their money without their acquiescence is conduct indicative of lack of, integrity and propriety.[9] He was clinging to something not his and to which he had no right.[10] | |||||