This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-11-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court defines "burden of proof" as "the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law." In civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff, who is required to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.[55] Once the plaintiff has established his case, the burden of evidence shifts to the defendant, who, in turn, has the burden to establish his defense.[56] | |||||
|
2008-10-10 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that, in order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff - a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it. The underlying basis for the award of tort damages is the premise that an individual was injured in contemplation of law; thus, there must first be a breach before damages may be awarded, and the breach of such duty should be the proximate cause of the injury.[20] | |||||