This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Notably, Dra. dela Llana anchors her claim mainly on three pieces of evidence: (1) the pictures of her damaged car, (2) the medical certificate dated November 20, 2000, and (3) her testimonial evidence. However, none of these pieces of evidence show the causal relation between the vehicular accident and the whiplash injury. In other words, Dra. dela Llana, during trial, did not adduce the factum probans or the evidentiary facts by which the factum probandum or the ultimate fact can be established, as fully discussed below.[37] | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| What petitioner has accomplished is only to cast doubts by capitalizing on the absence of documentary evidence on the part of respondents. While such approach would succeed if carried out by the accused in criminal cases, plaintiffs in civil cases need to do much more to overturn findings of fact and credibility by the trial court, especially when the same had been affirmed by the CA. It must be stressed that overturning judgments in civil cases should be based on preponderance of evidence, and with the further qualification that, when the scales shall stand upon an equipoise, the court should find for the defendant.[47] The "equiponderance of evidence" rule states that when the scale shall stand upon an equipoise and there is nothing in the evidence which shall incline it to one side or the other, the court will find for the defendant.[48] Under this principle, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim; even if the evidence of the plaintiff may be stronger than that of the defendant, there is no preponderance of evidence on his side if such evidence is insufficient in itself to establish his cause of action.[49] | |||||
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| We rule that the alleged dismissal of respondents from the service would not suffice to discredit them as witnesses. In People v. Dominguez,[98] this Court had occasion to rule that even a prior criminal conviction does not by itself suffice to discredit a witness; the testimony of that witness must be assayed and scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimonies of other witnesses must be examined for their relevance and credibility.[99] In Gomez v. Gomez-Samson,[100] this Court echoed its previous pronouncement that even convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying as long as, having organs of sense, they "can perceive and perceiving can make known their perceptions to others."[101] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded great weight and respect - even considered as conclusive and binding on this Court[27] - since the trial judge had the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note his demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[28] Only the trial judge can observe the furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh of a witness, or his scant or full realization of an oath - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity.[29] He can thus be expected to determine with reasonable discretion which testimony is acceptable and which witness is worthy of belief.[30] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Absent any showing that the trial court's calibration of the credibility of the witnesses was flawed, we are bound by its assessment.[31] This Court will sustain such findings unless it can be shown that the trial court ignored,[32] overlooked, misunderstood,[33] misappreciated,[34] or misapplied[35] substantial facts and circumstances, which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.[36] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Galicia's original TOR, although belatedly submitted, is positive evidence that, indeed, he took up 18 units of education at the CCPC. The present College Registrar's certification of the absence of Galicia's records in her office, is negative evidence to the contrary. Following the general rule that positive evidence is more credible than negative evidence, We find more reason to uphold the findings of the CA.[44] | |||||