This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-02-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| PBCom anchors its arguments on the alleged implied admission by Spouses Go resulting from their failure to specifically deny the material allegations in the Complaint, citing as precedent Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals,[42] and Morales v. Court of Appeals. Spouses Go, on the other hand, argue that although admissions were made in the Answer, the special and affirmative defenses contained therein tendered genuine issues. | |||||
|
2005-11-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Finally, no grave abuse of discretion can be imputed to the trial court when it rendered the decision. The pieces of evidence considered by the court a quo to arrive at its decision were documents attached as annexes to the various pleadings filed by the parties. It is well-settled that documents attached to the pleadings form part thereof and may be considered as evidence even if not formally introduced as evidence.[17] The court may and should consider as evidence documents attached to the pleadings filed by the parties and made a part thereof, without necessity of introducing them expressly as evidence when their authenticity and due execution have not been denied under oath.[18] | |||||