This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-09-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| A motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right, but a request addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Parties asking for postponement have absolutely no right to assume that their motions would be granted. Thus, they must be prepared on the day of the hearing.[19] Indeed, an order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for performing dilatory actions upholds the trial court's duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one party.[20] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| With our finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motion for postponement filed by petitioner's counsel, petitioner's contention that he was deprived of his day in court must likewise fail. The essence of due process is that a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. If the opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[23] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| A motion for postponement is a privilege and not a right. A movant for postponement should not assume beforehand that his motion will be granted. The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is a matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Indeed, an order declaring a party to have waived the right to present evidence for performing dilatory actions upholds the trial court's duty to ensure that trial proceeds despite the deliberate delay and refusal to proceed on the part of one party. [38] | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Fraud is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in the damage to another or by which an undue and unconscionable advantage is taken of another.[30] It is a question of fact that must be alleged and proved. It cannot be presumed and must be established by clear and convincing evidence, not by mere preponderance of evidence.[31] The party alleging the existence of fraud has the burden of proof.[32] On the basis of the above disquisitions, this Court finds that petitioner has failed to discharge this burden. No matter how strong the suspicion is on the part of petitioner, such suspicion does not translate into tangible evidence sufficient to nullify the assailed transactions involving the subject MSCI Class "A" share of stock. | |||||
|
2009-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At this point, we reiterate that a party who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it. Whoever alleges fraud or mistake affecting a transaction must substantiate it, since it is presumed that a person takes ordinary care of his concerns, and that private transactions have been fair and regular.[32] | |||||